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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 15 Jan 08 - 08:55 AM

"In other words, the Lancet study could hardly be more unreliable. Yet it was trumpeted by the political left because it fit a narrative that they wanted to believe. And it wasn't challenged by much of the press because it told them what they wanted to hear. The truth was irrelevant."

From the Wall Street Journal The Lancet's Political Hit January 9, 2008; Page A14

Three weeks before the 2006 elections, the British medical journal Lancet published a bombshell report estimating that casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. We know that number was wildly exaggerated. The news is that now we know why.

It turns out the Lancet study was funded by anti-Bush partisans and conducted by antiwar activists posing as objective researchers. It also turns out the timing was no accident. You can find the fascinating details in the current issue of National Journal magazine, thanks to reporters Neil Munro and Carl Cannon. And sadly, that may be the only place you'll find them. While the media were quick to hype the original Lancet report -- within a week of its release it had been featured on 25 news shows and in 188 newspaper and magazine articles -- something tells us this debunking won't get the same play.

The Lancet death toll was more than 10 times what had been estimated by the U.S. and Iraqi governments, and even by human rights groups. Asked about the study on the day it was released, President Bush said, "I don't consider it a credible report." Neither did the Pentagon and top British authorities. To put the 655,000 number in perspective, consider that fewer Americans died in the Civil War, our bloodiest conflict.

Skeptics at the time (including us) pointed to the Lancet study's manifold methodological flaws. The high body count was an extrapolation based on a sampling of households and locations that was far too small to render reliable results. What the National Journal adds is that the Lancet study was funded by billionaire George Soros's Open Society Institute. Mr. Soros is a famous critic of the Iraq campaign and well-known partisan, having spent tens of millions trying to defeat Mr. Bush in 2004.

But "Soros is not the only person associated with the Lancet study who had one eye on the data and the other on the U.S. political calendar," write Messrs. Munro and Cannon. Two co-authors, Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University, told the reporters that they opposed the war from the outset and sent their report to the Lancet on the condition that it be published before the election.

Mr. Roberts, who opposed removing Saddam from power, sought the Democratic nomination for New York's 24th Congressional District in 2006. Asked why he ran, Mr. Roberts replied, "It was a combination of Iraq and [Hurricane] Katrina."

Then there is Lancet Editor Richard Horton, "who agreed to rush the study into print, with an expedited peer review process and without seeing the surveyors' original data," report Mr. Munro and Mr. Cannon. He has also made no secret of his politics. "At a September 2006 rally in Manchester, England, Horton declared, 'This axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conflict, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease,'" they write. See YouTube for more.

We also learn that the key person involved in collecting the Lancet data was Iraqi researcher Riyadh Lafta, who has failed to follow the customary scientific practice of making his data available for inspection by other researchers. Mr. Lafta had been an official in Saddam's ministry of health when the dictator was attempting to end international sanctions against Iraq. He wrote articles asserting that many Iraqis were dying from cancer and other diseases caused by spent U.S. uranium shells from the Gulf War. According to National Journal, the Lancet studies "of Iraqi war deaths rest on the data provided by Lafta, who operated with little American supervision and has rarely appeared in public or been interviewed about his role."

In other words, the Lancet study could hardly be more unreliable. Yet it was trumpeted by the political left because it fit a narrative that they wanted to believe. And it wasn't challenged by much of the press because it told them what they wanted to hear. The truth was irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 11:48 PM

Teribus--


Interesting-- on 29 Nov 2007, you told us that if the US withdrew from rump Iraq (without Kurdistan)--which the UK is doing with alacrity-- we would "reap the whirlwind". But for some reason it's been almost a month, and you haven't managed to come up with one iota of evidence that if the US did so, al-Qaeda would take over Iraq--or indeed, any part of it. We can hardly wait for you to tell us how this is to happen, given that al-Qaeda is roundly despised by both Iraq Sunnis and Shiites.

And if this is not what you meant by "reap the whirlwind", what exactly did you mean? Inquiring minds need to know.

A related issue:

From the WSJ, 26 Dec 2007:

"Armed Sunni fighters must be recognized as legitimate members of Iraqi society and be rewarded for efforts in fighting al-Qaeda, the top US commander in the area south of Baghdad said."

"legitimate members of Iraqi society"--precisely what I've been saying for over 2 years now--and you have been denying, saying that Sunnis deserve "no consideration".

And up to now, it seems Maliki agrees with you--which is why there has been no progress on "national reconciliation"--though it is the only goal of the "surge"--precisely to gain time for said "national reconciliation".

And as for your assertion that the Sunnis are co-operating with "their government"--that's exactly the problem--they appear willing but said "government" is not willing to have them.   As a result, and following your counsel, since after all Sunnis deserve "no consideration", Maliki now has Sunni armed forces outside his control.

Brilliant.

You are indeed the perfect negative indicator.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:03 PM

Teribus--

And I'm sure we'd all like to hear exactly how al-Qaeda, roundly despised by both Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, is going to take over rump Iraq (without "Kurdistan") when most of the US troops leave.

So please don't feel shy about enlightening us.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 11:00 PM

But your tripe is quite entertaining--please never change.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:58 PM

Teribus--


"...neither reason nor fact...."--so you're still looking in the mirror, then?

Fascinating that you can't manage to refute one word of what I said.

Interesting article in US News and World Report 10 Dec 2007. "The Pentagon deploys social scientists to help understand Iraq's 'human terrain' ".

The contrast between this and your classic troglodyte attitude-- ( "no consideration" for Sunnis; any concern for their interests is "appeasement")-- is rather stark, to say the least.

As I said earlier, it's a good thing for the world that you are so far removed from the levers of power--and will never get any closer.

As long as your drivel is restricted to Mudcat, we'll be safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Dec 07 - 01:59 AM

Good heavens Ron that's rather a lot of words when you consider they say absolutely nothing. Not surprising you very rarely say anything and what you do come out with is never backed up by either reason or fact.

So Dianavan, you forgot to answer some points I raised:

- Am I correct in thinking that out of damn near 10.4 million people you regard the arrest of 36 of them to be significant in some way of illustrating that Sunni Arabs are not co-operating with the Government?

- Who do you think gave them up?

- Who did they give them up to?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:53 PM

Teribus--

"appeasement"--you just can't get beyond World War II, can you? It seems to be the only environment you're comfortable in.

You advocated that the Sunnis should recognize reality and deal with the Iraqi government. Uh, not exactly. Only after ranting for months--or years-- about how they deserved "no consideration" and were like "hardcore Nazis in 1945"--there's your good old World War II reference again.

While I have been consistently saying for years now that the key was treating the Iraqi Sunnis as if they were Iraqi citizens--which they are, believe it or not. But of course this is "appeasement" in your book. But it's OK, we all understand you desperately need something you recognize--and World War II era language appears to be the limit of your expertise, it seems. Just as you imagine armed forces in the Mideast are just like the Royal Navy--with nice neat chains of command, and orders obeyed. So charming. It's a shame things are a bit more complex. Sorry.


So now it's "CUT AND RUN". You've managed to update from World War II to Bushspeak. Congratulations. But sorry, that's not much of an improvement over your usual drivel. In fact, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that drivel, and possibly dribble, is just about all that ever comes out of Bush's mouth.

By the way, we're not deaf, even if you might be--there's no need to SHOUT. Of course it makes your points so much more POWERFULLY--at least you must think so.

CUT AND RUN--so, in your infinite wisdom, you've decided the US should not leave Iraq--which we weren't about to do anyway---regardless, we'll be staying in "Kurdistan", as I've pointed out more than once.

So, if we leave rump Iraq (without Kurdistan), what happens, pray tell? Al Qaeda takes over Iraq? Exactly how clueless are you? Have you not seen the reception al Qaeda has been receiving in Anbar, etc? It's fairly obvious to any intelligent observer--so sorry that does not seem to include you--again--that al Qaeda is not popular with either Iraqi Sunnis or Shiites.

Sorry, your latest scare tactic, like WMD and all the others you have cherished over the years, has been shown up for what it is--your own self-inflicted nightmare.

But I hope you sleep better tonight.

Believe it or not, al-Qaeda will not come and get you in your sleep, even if quite a few US troops are withdrawn from Iraq. And that's coming regardless of how you gnash your teeth, fulminate and try to impersonate Cassandra. By the way, you need to work on that a bit more--even her logic was a bit better than yours seems to be, sad to say.

Looking forward to your next calm well-reasoned posting. (Well, I can dream).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:50 PM

Oops, that was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM

During the spring and summer of 2001, President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefers whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger. Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious. The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." It was the 36th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States.

    The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way. As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.

    He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.

    Although the following day's SEIB repeated the title of this PDB, it did not contain the reference to hijackings, the alert in New York, the alleged casing of buildings in New York, the threat phoned in to the embassy, or the fact that the FBI had approximately 70 ongoing bin Ladin-related investigations. No CSG or other NSC meeting was held to discuss the possible threat of a strike in the United States as a result of this report.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM

Nice try, teribus, but Dulaimi is hardly a shade of grey.

He leads the largest Sunni parliamentary bloc.

So if its all democratic and everybody is moving toward reconcilliation and everything is hunky-dory, whats with the bombs in the basement?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:15 PM

What you've torn to shreds is truth and your own credibility.
Have a nice little bitter bully's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:47 PM

Bobert, Bobert, Bobert...

"So when Bush made a statement about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon a couple months ago and how that would be the beginning of World War III he made the statement ***after*** being told by the intellegence folks that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear weapon's program in 2003..."

The report states that Iran curtailed it's nuclear weapons program in 2003.
The IAEA has stated that it CANNOT provide ANY evidence as to whether that program was dismantled, frozen, or even restarted.

I "curtailed" my employment in 2002. As of 2003, I WAS unemployed (PLEASE NOTE THE PAST TENSE). I have since been employed from 2004 to the present: BUT you would call me a liar if I said I was employed now, I have to presume.

I would prefer to have the IAEA decide that Iran HAS decided to comply with the NPT requirements that it violated, before stating that Iran does NOT have a nuclear program.

Right now, WE DO NOT KNOW.

Conditional statement:
IF Iran gets a nuclear device THEN it would be a BAD thing.

Since THAT is what Bush said, your point is... That it would NOT be a bad thing?????????

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 04:36 PM

Well, seems that history repeats itself... TIA pointed out that Bush ignored the Aug. 8th PDB and that has been pretty much proven...

So when Bush made a statement about Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon a couple months ago and how that would be the beginning of World War III he made the statement ***after*** being told by the intellegence folks that Iran had curtailed it's nuclear weapon's program in 2003...

I reckon we'll just call this latest bald-faced Bush lie "NukeGate"... Yeah, I know...The boy just can't help himself, right???

How 'bout the Betty Ford Clinic, George???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 02:18 PM

Guest TIA, I really liked this one:

"Reporting for the Washington Post, Barton Gellman has written that "beginning on August 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office." (12/19/01)"

"a campaign of increasing scope and lethality" - That gave me a really good laugh - Is that the campaign that knocked out the powdered milk factory and killed some goats?

For "leathality" read lashing out blindly and ineffectually. It was a complete and utter joke and appearing more so to the world at large, but more importantly to the intended targets by the minute.

Richard Clarke the guy you have pulled forth was absolutely livid that Clinton had not taken onboard his recommendations earlier and pursued bin Laden more aggressively.

But none-the-less I may yet take a toddle through the cherry-picket jewels, the Richard Clarke stuff I know we've torn to shreds before.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:11 AM

The proof of the crap is here.
You will undoubtedly label this website as biased. Okay, it's the political opposition, so it might be. But check all of the (voluminous) primary sources that are clearly referenced, and you will find overwhelming evidence that GWB did quite the opposite of keeping us safe from UBL and the like.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:04 AM

Math error granted. Mea culpa, good catch. I was wrong.

The rest? You're full of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 09:15 AM

Just not too good with recorded fact are you Guest TIA.

Your arithmetical error has already been highlighted so let's take a look at some of the others:

Since 11th September, 2001 there has been no successful terrorist attack on the US mainland, or anywhere else. Counter to the impression that Akenaton would like to give, those terrorist organisations have been continually trying but so far have failed. So yes, I'd say that GWB has done a pretty good job of keeping the US safe.

According to Guest TIA, GWB as POTUS, "blew off all alarms regarding UBL (Osama bin Laden) because that is what the outgoing Clinton administration warned him was the biggest threat to the safety of the US".

Osama bin Laden was off their radar too, if you want conformation of that take a look at who they described as posing the greatest threat to the United States of America in January 1998. It is all clearly voiced in a speech given by Bill Clinton of the 17th February, 1998.

"Instead he spent his first 18 months pushing "Star Wars" missile defense."

Quite rightly so too, in 2000 and 2001 who were testing missile engines and pushing forward new missiles with greater ranges than could reasonably be explained as being for defensive purposes? Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Tell us TIA what is the function of the "Star Wars" missile defence system? To protect the US and its allies against what?

He, "...ignored the PDB entitled "Osama bin Laden Determine th Strike Within the US".

It would have been very difficult for him to act on it wouldn't it Guest TIA. That warning had been plainly on the cards and applicable every day since the attack on the World trade Centre in 1993, and, according to Osama bin Laden, will remain in force until you lot convert en-bloc to Islam and submit yourself to the rule of an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law (Great news if your a Primary School teacher, awful if your a Teddy Bear).

"Kept us reaaallll safe." he sure has Guest TIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 08:40 AM

"Which Sunnis are you talking about teribus?"

So its still all "black" and "white" with you is it dianavan, no shades of grey at all. And you telling us all about reasonable discussion. Now then lets start shading in a few areas of grey shall we Dianavan.

First point I note that Ron, yourself and a quite a number on this Forum keep trotting out, "The Sunni's this, the Sunni's that, etc etc." making no differentiation as to their race. Iraqi Kurdish Shia and Iraqi Kurdish Sunni have been rubbing along together just fine since we in the West have stood guardians over them since 1991.

Then you have the Iraqi Sunni Arabs, who formerly supported the insurgency and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, but who now by and large have given up on the insurgency and have now rounded on their former allies Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq.

Now 97% of Iraq's population are Muslim - Iraq's population is 26,783,383 - so 25,979,882 of them are muslim.

Of the muslim population of Iraq roughly 40% are Sunni - so the number of Sunni (Both Kurd and Arab) is around 10,391,953.

So am I correct in thinking that out of damn near 10.4 million people you regard the arrest of 36 of them to be significant in some way of illustrating that Sunni Arabs are not co-operating with the Government? Dianavan quite the reverse, who do you think gave them up? Who did they give them up to? Reconciliation at work.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 01:43 AM

Which Sunnis are you talking about teribus?

Seven people were arrested on Thursday at Dulaimi's office and 29, including Dulaimi's son Mekki, were seized in a raid early on Friday at Dulaimi's house, said Brigadier General Qassim Moussawi, security spokesman for Baghdad.

"We have also found quantities of weapons and uniforms of the army and police at the home of Dr. al-Dulaimi," he told Reuters. "Dulaimi's bodyguards are suspected of having links to car bombs and killings. There are confessions against them."

http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSL30349337

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 12:25 AM

Well Ron, as I said previously, things have got better in Iraq and yes there's still a long way to go. The one thing I have always said is that this is going to take time.

Reconciliation between parties involved is essential, I do not believe anyone has ever denied that. The first step to be taken in the reconciliation process is realisation. Realisation that there is going to be no military solution and no outright "winner". Realisation that things have to change. The Sunni Arab community in Iraq have realised both of those facts and are now co-operating with their Government in addressing the security situation in their respective areas. Something I said that they would have to do months, if not years ago. You Ron, on the other hand, were advocating appeasement.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 10:55 PM

Sep. 11 2001 - Jan. 1 2001 = 8 months 11 days

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 10:20 PM

"Counting up the number of times the US was attacked before 2001 and since, I'd say that GWB has done a pretty good job of keeping the US safe."

Ooops. GWB was POTUS for ~18 months prior to 9/11/01. Kept us safe, did he?

He blew off all alarms regarding UBL because that is what the outgoing Clinton administration warned him was the biggest threat to the safety of the US. Instead he spent his first 18 months pushing "Star Wars" missile defense. And ignored the PDB entitled "Osama bin Laden Determine th Strike Within the US".

Kept us reaaallll safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 09:47 PM

Teribus--

Thanks for yet another meaningless list. But I have to say, you are getting just the tiniest bit boring. And it's interesting that more and more prominent people agree with me--and, sad to say, not with you.

Latest one: Negroponte. WSJ 3 Dec 2007:

"Negroponte called on Iraqi leaders to take advantage of security gains by passing laws aimed at promoting political reconciliation."

Why, there's that pesky word again: "reconciliation". Sure is amazing you seem to have not heard of it. Most sentient beings--such a shame it does not seem to include you-- are well aware that political reconciliation--and nothing else--was the goal of the "surge".

Wonder what hole you've been living in, to have missed this.

Perhaps it's since you're still living in 1945--when everything was simple enough so you could understand it. It's really too bad, I suppose, that all Sunnis are not "the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945"--then you'd be able to make sense.



Homey--

Thanks for your information on sarcasm--don't know how we've lived so long without knowing it. I want you to know we all appreciate your gallant attempts to keep the Mudcat readership abreast of such burning issues. Did you have a reason for posting? I'm sure nobody here would ever indulge in the low form of humor known as sarcasm . But please let us know if you ever believe that anybody on Mudcat is implicated in such a thing.

And when you've finished dealing with that earth-shattering topic, perhaps you can find time to actually answer the question your lord and master, Teribus, is too busy compiling useless lists to answer:   Was "national reconciliation" the goal of the "surge" in Iraq? Yes or no?

I also want you to know how sorry I am that I said: "You must be taking lessons from Teribus on not reading what you yourself write".

Obviously I should have said: "You must be taking lessons from Teribus on not reading what you yourself post."

Please accept my humble apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 07:51 PM

I hate it when I agree with T-Bird but I guess the law-of-averages has kicked in in his favor...

I fully agree that Al Qeada and Osoma bin Loafin' don't have the ability to pull off anything like 9/11... The US is a lot smarter than it was back before 9/11... I mean, if some Middle Eastern guy comes into an aviation school and says, "Hey, I want to learn how to fly a 737 but don't need to be botherd with learning about take offs or landings" then a big red flag goes up... I think this applies purdy much accross thew board... The US is learned a few things on 9/11... Not just Bush but every thinking American... Okay, maybe Bush didn't learn anything...

No, thye cureent foriegn policy based on fighting fundamental Islamists is a formula for more failures... Fundamental Islamist are not more a problem than their fundamental Christian counterparts... Both are fringe... Neither is able to hold and control an agenda very long...

The US should be focusing on real foreign policy problems... LIke Chine and India... Like Russia...

Bush and his neo-colonialists have been distracted from the real problems that the US faces and that is why their forieng policy is slowly bleeding the country to death... All the $$$$ that they have spent in killing upwards of a million Iraqis could have been spent better improving its realtionships with other countries...

Osama ain't worth all the attention that Bush has given him... Bush has been suckered into Osama's game... Not vice versa... Meanwhile, the killing gors on and the spending goes on and the attention that US should and could be giving to real problems are being ignored...

Bush is a moron... Cheney is a moron... Morons shouldn't be able to get to this position of authority and that is perhaps the worst part about this because the US is vulnerbale to electing its next president who may not be much smarter...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 06:14 PM

On the subject of laughs Akenaton, your last post was priceless.

Seriously Ake, there is only one Osama bin Laden and since December 2001 he has been a complete and utter irrelevance.

"The Islamists or any other determined terrorist organisation can hit Western economies whenever and wherever they please."

Perhaps you could therefore care to explain why they have been unable to do so.

"Obviously it is not been in their interests to launch such an attack so far.........Can our luck hold?....I doubt it....Ake"

So when would it be in their best interests Ake? I would presume before they've had the shit completely knocked out of them, because that is exactly what has been happening to them in Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, along the coast of Somalia, in the Phillipines and in Indonesia. They are fast running out of steam Ake, because there is no-one backing them, not even their own people. They have been trapped into fighting battles not of their chosing and they are paying the price for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 05:14 PM

I stand corrected.

Sadr doesn't want more U.S. troops and if Maliki thinks he can oppose al Sadr, he may be in for a sad surprise. Its only because al Sadr has told his troops to stand down that the death toll in Iraq has decreased in the last few months. It has nothing to do with the U.S. surge.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM

"Sarcasm is the sneering, sly, jesting, or mocking of a person, situation or thing. It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony intended to insult or wound."

"Any 9 year old knows how to be sarcastic. This is the Bart Simpson school of politics. Check out Marx and Lenin's writings. Their usual trick is to slather their opponents with sarcastic remarks. "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Dec 07 - 08:47 AM

Well, well, well...

When Alan Greenspan says it's about oil then there's a darned good chance that it's about oil...

I think we have seen "Cheney's Energy Policy" and it is Iraqmire... It is the bankrupting of the US Treasury... It is about using my hard earned tax dollars to not only train but better equip the Iraqis so when the end of the occupation comes they will really be able to light the joint up in civil war...

And what gives Bush the authority to cunduct this insane foriegn policy??? A congressional resoultion to as a "last resort" use force to protect the US from Sadda,'s WMD??? Well, seein' as he didn't have any, I believe the resolution is "null and void"...

This administartion is spinning out of control... There is no logic, legal or otherwise, in these crooks being able to order decent men and women into harms way to prop up an illegitmate governemnt and occupy Iraq...

This is what Hitler did and the world said "No"!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 11:28 AM

Aye you're a right laugh Teribus, do you really think that there's only one Osama....there's thousands of them.
Killing Osama would produce thousands more.

Don't tempt fate by stating that Bush's foreign policy has kept us safe....that is the ultimate idiocy.
The Islamists or any other determined terrorist organisation can hit Western economies whenever and wherever they please.
One biological attack will bring the whole house of cards tumbling.

Obviously it is not been in their interests to launch such an attack so far.........Can our luck hold?....I doubt it....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Dec 07 - 03:46 AM

"The present agreement insures U.S. control of the oil flow in Iraq."

Not this old chestnut again!! Pray Dianavan tell us how? I will not hold my breath waiting for any sort of response that will answer that question, the whole premise of your statement is ludicrous.

By the bye Dianavan recorded history is also against this observation/prediction of yours:

"GWB has guaranteed that the American public will never be safe."

Counting up the number of times the US was attacked before 2001 and since, I'd say that GWB has done a pretty good job of keeping the US safe.

Mind you, I have yet to hear any of the prospective candidates for President advocating conversion to Islam to buy your peace of mind, remembering of course that is what Osama requires you all to do before the attacks stop. For my part I'd rather stick to the current tactic of keeping his scrawny ass on the run so that he has to hide in a different hole in the ground each night, his luck won't hold for ever, simple matter of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 01:51 PM

When Maliki ignores his parliament and Bush ignores Congress, to sign an agreement that keeps U.S. bases in Iraq, it doesn't really matter who the people 'voted' for. The present agreement insures U.S. control of the oil flow in Iraq. Unfortunately, it is the presence of U.S. military in Iraq that also insures ongoing civil and political strife. The presence of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia is exactly why bin Laden attacked the U.S. GWB has guaranteed that the American public will never be safe.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 09:20 AM

apologies to jo jo.....that was me

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 09:08 AM

"Please state if you think that the electorate voted on political, or religious/ ethnic lines."

Now I know you're not dim Mr T, so I take it you're acting the c**t.
The operative word in that sentense is (((or))).
You and I both know that no matter how many people vote, if they have no choice it is not democracy. These people were voting for power to their religious/ ethnic group and in a way that is democracy of sorts....only problem is, the minorities are not represented at all....and.....   in this case, it is not the sort of democracy which suits the West, hense the American support for the Sunni death squads.

Before long, the status quo will be resumed, the Shia will be persecuted, the Sunni's will have all the power and Uncle Sam will be wearing Saddam's Trilby....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 05:50 AM

The usual ludicrous Trotist, Anarchist comments from our Akenaton:

"In addition, is an election fully free or democratic if the voter stands a very good chance of having his throat slit for putting his cross in the wrong box?"

Well despite the threats Ake, 70% of Iraqi voters did turn out to vote (Guest TIA it was that 70% of the people of Iraq who the present Government and Parliament represent). Now tell me again how many Scots, unthreatened, turned out for our last election? I'll refresh your memory it was about 50%, Scotland now has a minority SNP Government that 83% of the voters in Scotland didn't vote for. How many, unthreatened, turned out for the UK's last General Election? Again I'll refresh your memory somewhere around 35% wasn't it. The UN's observers deemed the electoral process to be free and fair.

"Please state if you think that the electorate voted on political, or religious/ ethnic lines."

Well as a statement of the obvious Ake that takes the biscuit. In an election to form the Parliament and Government of a country how else should people vote if not along "political lines". How do you vote under such circumstances? - On looks? on what the candidates happened to have been wearing last time you saw them?. Akenaton, I believe that in elections all over the world the electorate vote on political or religious/ethnic lines.

"Come on Mr T you're the guy with all the facts at your finger tips.
How many Sunni's voted for Shia candidates?....That would be democracy!!"

Fortunately Ake, I do not have that information, as for the first time ever the ballot in Iraq was secret. The "election" that Saddam held on 22nd October 2002 had only one name on the ballot paper, and before putting that ballot slip into the box each voter had to show it to the Officials manning the polling station. So it would not be democracy in Scotland until you voted Conservative Ake? No Ake in a real democracy you get to vote for whoever you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 07 - 04:00 AM

In addition, is an election fully free or democratic if the voter stands a very good chance of having his throat slit for putting his cross in the wrong box?

Please state if you think that the electorate voted on political, or religious/ ethnic lines.

Come on Mr T you're the guy with all the facts at your finger tips.
How many Sunni's voted for Shia candidates?....That would be democracy!!
I think you know very well what the future of Iraq will be.
The Sunni "Facist death squads" that you hate so much are being groomed by the American invaders to stand against the installation of an Islamic republic.

"Why the fuck did we hang that Saddam chappie George?...We need him NOW!!"........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 11:33 PM

Before anyone answers No. 7, please clarify...which people?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Nov 07 - 01:57 AM

Perfect record Ron.

Not one single point addressed. Why was that? The person who tells you what think having a night off?

These are not going to go away:

1. In the period 1979 to 2003 how many elections were held in Iraq?
2. In that same period how many candidates appeared on any ballot?
3. In that same period please name the number of opposition parties that appeared on the ballot list?
4. Please state if you agree that those results were credible.
5. Since March 2003 how many democratically free elections have there been in Iraq?
6. Since March 2003 how many referenda have been held?
7. Does the present Government of Iraq reflect the will of the people of Iraq?

I take it that you can actually read Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Nov 07 - 10:04 PM

Teribus--

You continue your unbroken history of reading problems.

1) Amos' contributions are relevant--look at the thread title. Yours, uh, not so much.

2) Thanks for another meaningless list. Nice to know some things never change. What was it--Dewar's whiskey?--and Teribus' drivel.


Now, exactly when will you be able to take a break from useless pillaging of the Net, and actually answer the question about "national reconciliation" in Iraq? Was it the goal of the "surge"--yes or no?

You know, sometimes it seems you may have something against answering the question. Could it be that you don't like the answer?

Nah, you're always so well informed and scrupulously fair, always unruffled, never losing your temper.

All together now---well, hardly ever!


Or is it that you for some reason don't like it pointed out that the reason Maliki stubbornly refuses to accept the Sunnis who want to be part of the armed forces and the police is that he agrees with you--that all Sunnis deserve "no consideration" since they are "the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945". That set a new standard of brilliance, even for you--and your sterling record on Iraq is hard to beat. Good thing for the world that you're safely far away from the levers of power. Though as a negative indicator, you're just about perfect.

Looking forward to your next rambling, semi-coherent posting---uh, I mean, incisive analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 07 - 08:52 PM

Well, well, well...

Seems that Bush and Maliki have joined hands in passin' the occupation off to the next president... No, not a treaty, mind you which would involve Congress (horrors...) but an agreement non the less that the US will be in Iraq forever, give or take a few decades or centuries...

Meanwhile, the US will go broke but at least Bush will have his legacy, won't he... The guy who purdy much single handedly took the US of A down...

Good work, Georgie...

(Bot, Bobert, what did you expect from someone who has failed in everything he's tried??? Like what were you thinkin'??? Law of averages, 'er what???)

No, I expected that Bush would indeed screw things up agains and he has... Now it is official (kinda) seein' that he and Maliki are of one mind that that occupiers must stay...

I warned all of you Bush apologists a long time ago that you cannnot deal with Middle East folks as if they will tell you the truth... They absolutley won't... It is a cul;tural thing... I learned it well during dealing with both the Kuwaiti's and the Saudies...

Bush is in way over his head with these folks... They will twist him any way they want...

So, now it it official... Bush's legacy is that he was too friggin' stupid to stay outta Iraq and now he's gonna pass it off to someone who might be smarter???

Great friggin' legacy!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 07 - 08:27 PM

Ron Davies - 28 Nov 07 - 06:49 PM

"Fine, Homey, You didn't write anything. Congratulations, Mr. Pharisee. You win your point. So what, pray tell, was the point of your last posting? Just to practice your cut and paste skills? We really don't need any more brilliant posters wasting bandwidth with irrelevant articles."

Now then Ron Davies being both impartial and fair why don't you post exactly the same message addressed to Amos on his "Impeachment" thread.

By the bye Ron, ould Maliki appears to favour the US being there for at least the whole of 2008 under the current agreement with the UN he then wants some form of bi-lateral agreement with the US beyond that, which rather blows the premise of this thread apart. So rather than witter on about "national reconciliation" you might start focusing on the realities of the situation, and start answering a few questions for a change. Here are a few:

1. In the period 1979 to 2003 how many elections were held in Iraq?
2. In that same period how many candidates appeared on any ballot?
3. In that same period please name the number of opposition parties that appeared on the ballot list?
4. Please state if you agree that those results were credible.
5. Since March 2003 how many democratically free elections have there been in Iraq?
6. Since March 2003 how many referenda have been held?
7. Does the present Government of Iraq reflect the will of the people of Iraq?

You Ron live in a democratic country, you Ron, have certain freedoms, which apart from all the hysteria to the contrary, still provides all the protection that your "Constitution" affords. Please explain why you would deny similar rights to others.

PS: Dianavan

"By now it should be apparent to even the most hermetic observers that untangling the problems of Iraq will be a monumental task."

As a statement of the obvious this beggars description, of course it was a monumental task, that does not meant to eliminate the requirement that it be undertaken.

"As the January 2007"

OK, hang on a minute, lets just wait for Ron Davies to point out that January 2007 was just about a year ago - Don't hold your breath he won't do that, holding to the good old socialist rule that there is one law for the goose and another for the gander.

"As of January 2007, National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq highlighted, the country suffers from a variety of dangerous, complicated, and intertwined problems, including terrorism, pervasive organized and unorganized crime, as insurgency, a failed state, a security vacuum, and a civil war."

Well pointing out the obvious no-one for one minute has denied the existence of exteremely complicated problems, but they are being addressed. The insurrection is being contained and dare I say it defeated. Iraq is far from being labelled as a failed state and there is certainly no such thing as a civil war by any "official" definition.

Now provided that you stay and actually do what you have stated that you would do, all bodes well. If on the other hansd you "CUT AND RUN" as you are noted, historically for doing, then you will definitely reap the whirlwind - Your choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 07 - 02:13 AM

"By now it should be apparent to even the most hermetic observers that untangling the problems of Iraq will be a monumental task. As the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq highlighted, the country suffers from a variety of dangerous, complicated, and intertwined problems, including terrorism, pervasive organized and unorganized crime, as insurgency, a failed state, a security vacuum, and a civil war. 1 U.S. policy toward Iraq must come to grips with all of them if it is to have any chance of engendering an environment that leads to sustainable peace."


http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2007/summer_iraq_pascual.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 06:49 PM

Fine, Homey, You didn't write anything. Congratulations, Mr. Pharisee. You win your point. So what, pray tell, was the point of your last posting? Just to practice your cut and paste skills? We really don't need any more brilliant posters wasting bandwidth with irrelevant articles.

Just by himself, Teribus manages to waste an amazing amount--usually by meaningless lists.

And when you've wasted all the time and bandspace you had in mind, perhaps you, or your lord and master, Teribus, can find the time, in a busy schedule of pillaging the Net, to actually find current evidence of "national reconciliation" in Iraq.

And perhaps you'd be able to address the fact that 2 Republican Senators said on Monday that unless Maliki "makes more political progress by January, the US should consider pulling political or financial support for his government".--AP 27 Nov 2007.

"What would happen for me if there's no progress on reconciliation after the first of the year, I would be looking at ways to invest our money into groups that can deliver": Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC.

OK, your turn--the Pollyanna club is now in session.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 10:29 AM

Very true Guest Homey, you didn't, but you see our Ron ain't too great on either comprehension or attribution.

Now from what I have read of your posts you have restricted your input, very much like Amos in another similarly long thread, to quoting articles by others. A fact that has seemingly escaped our Ron's notice.

I most certainly do not see the need, requirement or benefit in even attempting to "impress" Ron Davies, who would in all probability have to get somebody to explain it all to him in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 28 Nov 07 - 09:03 AM

I don't recall writing anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 11:14 PM

Homey--

You must be taking lessons from Teribus in not reading what you yourself write. But your techniques of shooting yourself in the foot just can't measure up to the wondrous variety of his.


7 Sunnis in the Iraqi Cabinet, as of 21 May 2006. Pardon me if I don't stand up and cheer.

Uh, what is the situation now? Not that I claim to be a math wizard, but I can't help suspecting that May 2006 was over a year ago.

As my all-time favorite foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain--surely you're familiar with her work?-- says: "That don't impress me much".

So we still wait patiently for the Iraqi "national reconciliation" ballyhooed by the Bush apologists.

Or did you perhaps not realize that the above-cited "national reconciliation", is, all sides agree, the goal of the "surge"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 04:21 PM

Don't worry Teribus, my spelling, like your history, leaves a lot to be desired.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 12:43 PM

All very well diuanavan the usual Blah, blah. Now answer the question:

Now what is this "unjust cause" that you are wittering on about, that as a tyranical parent I pressured my son into risking his life for?

As I stated before if you had a brain you'd be dangerous

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 12:15 PM

teribus - You are a bigger idiot than I thought.

I doubt if any teacher takes a political position when discussing current affairs. For change to occur, however, students must be encouraged to think critically and ask questions. Political change is inevitable, the direction of that change will hopefully be determined by an educated citizenry.

You would, of course, expect citizens to become good little consumers, maintain the status quo and follow the leader.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 11:56 AM

LOL just read my 2nd last post. It should have of course read:

"- Since 1997 it has singularly failed to deliver on one election promise;"

Dianavan enlighten us:

"Now what is this "unjust cause" that you are wittering on about, that as a tyranical parent I pressured my son into risking his life for?"

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

MAY 21, 2006

...Maliki chose the Sunni Arab deputy prime minister, Salam al-Zubaie, to oversee the Defense Ministry, and the Kurdish deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, to oversee the Ministry for National Security.

The voting took place under heavy security, in an auditorium inside the heavily fortified Green Zone. Outside, the bloodletting continued across the country.

Leaving aside the three unfilled posts, Maliki's cabinet includes 17 members of the dominant Shiite coalition, 7 Kurds, 7 members of the Sunni coalition and 5 members of Allawi's secular alliance.

Among the more powerful Shiite members of the cabinet are the Bayan Jabr, the finance minister, who until recently served as interior minister, and Hussein al-Shahristani, the new oil minister. Among the most prominent Kurds is Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister.....

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/21/africa/web.0521iraq.php

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:59 AM

700 Up!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:59 AM

Simple Dianavan - There should be absolutely no place for politics in schools.

"Funny, I could have sworn you told me your son was in the military."

I have he completed his education at University them joined the Royal Marines, his choice Dianavan that he was perfectly free to make.

Ake:

The Labour Government, even after the "Brown Bounce" as it became known is 13 points behind because:

- Since 1979 it has singularly failed to deliver on one election promise;

- It has constantly increased the number of taxes people pay by "stealth".

- Been perceived as breaking pledge and promise time after time, the most damaging being the promised referendum on the new EU Treaty.

The only way Iraq or Afghanistan enter the equation Ake is in the current Labour Governments treatment of the armed forces of the UK in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 07 - 01:04 AM

As usual, teribus, you have it ass-backwards.

To maintain the status quo, you must indoctrinate.

To teach for political change, you must teach them to question.

Funny, I could have sworn you told me your son was in the military.

I guess it must have been another lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 10:45 PM

Coy?

If that means less than 300 words with 60 bullet points, I'm guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:48 PM

U.S., Iraq sign plan for long-term relations


Story Highlights
Plan designed to move U.S., Iraq "closer to normalized, bilateral relations"

Plan considered a "set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations"

Iraq wants to be free of U.N. restraints

Bilateral relationship would address military, political, diplomatic, economic spheres


   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. and Iraqi leaders signed a plan for bilateral relations, setting the stage for formal negotiations about the long-term presence of American troops in Iraq.


President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sign the nonbinding agreement via video conference.

President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Monday signed the nonbinding agreement via video conference.

The plan is based on a more informal agreement between the United States and Iraq that was developed in August and discussed in September during a nationwide address by the president.

The joint statement is called the "U.S.-Iraq Declaration Of Principles For Friendship And Cooperation" -- which the document says would move both countries "closer to normalized, bilateral relations."

"Today's document is now the first of a three-step process that actually codifies this mutual decision for a long-term partnership," said Gen. Douglas Lute, assistant to the president for Iraq and Afghanistan, speaking to reporters at a press briefing.

The next step would be the renewal of a U.N. mandate for the Multinational Force-Iraq's mission for a final year and a bilateral military relationship without U.N. restraints after the mandate expires. The renewals have been done yearly since 2003 and the next renewal is expected by the end of this year.

Al-Maliki said on Iraqi TV on Monday that Iraq will ask the United Nations to approve the mandate for one final year, a period that will last through 2008. He said negotiations based on the declaration will start as soon as possible.

Iraq has been under U.N. constraints since the Saddam Hussein era and the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Iraq wants to be free of those restrictions since Hussein is no longer in power.

Lute said that "in the course of 2008, the two countries, the United States and Iraq, will codify formally our bilateral relationship with, as we're calling it, the strategic framework agreement. Today's declaration outlines the main parts of what we expect that emerging agreement to contain."

Don't Miss
Bush optimistic ahead of Mideast summit
He said the document is not a treaty, but instead a "set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations. Think of today's agreement as setting the agenda for the formal bilateral negotiations that will take place in the course of '08."

The declaration says this process would put the United States and Iraq "on a path toward negotiating agreements that are common throughout the world."

"The U.S. has security relationships with over 100 countries around the world, including recent agreements with nations such as Afghanistan and former Soviet bloc countries," it says.

The bilateral relationship would also address military, political, diplomatic, and economic spheres.

The declaration's security principles call for supporting "the Iraqi government in training, equipping, and arming the Iraqi Security Forces so they can provide security and stability to all Iraqis."

It also calls for supporting the Iraqi government "in contributing to the international fight against terrorism."

Both countries say they are "committed to strengthening Iraq's democratic institutions, upholding the Iraqi Constitution, supporting Iraqi national reconciliation, and enhancing Iraq's position in regional and international organizations."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 08:00 PM

First of all, Americans are still dieing on a regular basis in Iraq so lets put this "success" in some kind of persepctive...

But nevermind that, what we have is a treasury draining occupation that isn't moving Iraq toward any level of stability... Quite the opposite... The Iraqi's, by in large, want the US the heck out...

But stubborn Bush won't go... Why??? Oil, oil and oil... That's why...

So here the US is a hostage as an occupier... They have way too much invested in lives and $$$ and now finds itself as having no way of finding that elsuive "victory" that would give a stubborn lame duck president who is trying to run out the clock and let the next guy, or gal, have to do the cleaning up...

This is why Iraq has become a text-book case of what a quagmire looks like...

And meanwhile, more and more Amercans and Iraqis will die because the Republicans (and some Dems) don't want to admit that they royally screwed up...

There won't be a "political solution" until the US is gone... And you can take that to the bank...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 07:40 PM

T can't believe that you people are still taking Teribus seriously.
In a recent "discussion" on another thread, his guard dropped and he was reduced to making the observation that his opponents were "easier to wind up than clockwork mice".
That is what Mr T is ...a wind up merchant. I don't think for one second that he believes the rubbish he writes.
The whole world now perceives Iraq and Afghanistan as disasters.
In the UK Blairs madness has led to the demise of the Labour Party, they now stand 13 percentage points behind the Conservatives in the latest poll and the rot started with the invasion of Iraq.
Bush will soon be gone in America and they have left behind in Iraq not a "democracy"...not even the chance of a democracy, but either an Islamist republic or, if the Americans can find another Saddam, a country dominated by Sunni death squads and once again supported by the USA.
IThe arguments have all been won. We have egnited a fire in the Middle East that is now beyond our control.
For the next chapter watch Pakistan!!......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 06:02 PM

How coy Guest TIA, here's the full whack:

Definition
A civil war is "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".

Everyday usage of the term does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife.

SCHOLARS use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. Their second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side. Other social scientists consider this casualty number rather low and prefer for instance a definition of an average of 1,000 people killed per year.

International Definition
The Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, (Volume II-B, p. 121) does not specifically define the term 'civil war'. It did, however, describe the criteria that separate any act committed by force of arms (anarchy, terrorism, or plain banditry) from those qualifying as 'armed conflict not of an international character' which includes civil wars. Among those conditions listed are these four basic requirements.

• The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

• The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

• The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

• The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) further clarified Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. They stated that the nature of these armed conflicts, not of an international character "generally refer to conflicts with armed forces on either side which are in many respects similar to an international war, but take place within the confines of a single country."


U.S. Military Definition
The U.S. military has adopted the principles set by the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva for their definition of civil war. However, it does include an additional requirement for identifiable armed forces. The December 1990 version of FM 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict) defines a civil war as:

"A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: The contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."

NATO Definition
NATO does not directly define civil war. However, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Glossary of Terms and Definitions (Organisation Du Traite De L'Atlantique Nord Glossaire De Terms Et Definitions) NATO does provide a reference for what is not classified as a civil war. The manual states that 'civil disturbance' is defined as "group acts of violence and disorder prejudicial to public law and order".

This definition supports the premise shared by the Geneva Convention, ICRC, and the U.S. Military that a civil war is a higher level of violence commensurate with that of a conventional war of movement.

None of the above would qualify the situation in either Iraq or Afghanistan as representing a country in the grips of a civil war.

Guest dianavan:

"As to my teaching career - As an educator you have only two choices.

1. Teach to maintain the status quo
or
2. Teach for political change"

This does not say much for the education system in British Columbia. If any teacher came out with that statement in the UK they would be removed from their post and quite rightly so. Your job as a teacher is to educate, not indoctrinate. With the attitude described above that makes you pure poison and certainly not someone who should be around children.

On the subject of reasonable discussion. Talking as someone who knows remarkably little, or more correctly absolutely nothing, about my children, here's an example of what you as a teacher, sorry educator, launch into:

"I too, am glad I didn't teach your children. However, I might have been able to educate your child to become critically conscious and saved him from your tyranny and the pressure to risk his life for an unjust cause."

I will gladly pass your concerns on to my children, all of whom enjoyed a happy childhood and a good education to university level. I hope that they do independently get in touch with you and put you right on a number of points that you have made from a position of complete and utter ignorance - Which sadly does not surprise me as you do exactly the same on other topics time and time again.

All my children chose their own careers, so sorry no tyranny or pressure involved. Now what is this "unjust cause" that you are wittering on about, that as a tyranical parent I pressured my son into risking his life for? As I have said before, on most things you are completely clueless, if you had a brain you'd be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 01:18 PM

I asked you what you would call the present form of government in Iraq, not a U.N. definition.

As to my teaching career - As an educator you have only two choices.

1. Teach to maintain the status quo
or
2. Teach for political change

I too, am glad I didn't teach your children. However, I might have been able to educate your child to become critically conscious and saved him from your tyranny and the pressure to risk his life for an unjust cause.

I would also have taught your son that personal attacks are no substitute for a reasonable discussion.

Can you please tell me more about the massive strides that have been achieved toward national, political reconcilliation and what decisions have been made regarding the distribution of oil revenues?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 12:51 PM

"The common scholarly definition has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed, with at least 100 from each side."

Google {"civil war" +definition}, and you will find nearly all definitions with any specificity pretty much match this quote (from NY Times).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 09:02 AM

My, my dianavan, it's all "blacks" and "whites" with you isn't it, no shades of grey at all - Begs the question how you actually manage to live on this earth. The most astounding thing of all is that you are a teacher, as I said once before, thank Christ you had nothing to do with the education of anyone I care about.

Go back and read your last post and then do an objective critique of it and come back and tell us all how bloody stupid it was.

Of course as far as you have convinced yourself there can be no oil deals with anybody in Iraq as those "big-bad-evil-neo-con-oil barons" have stolen all the oil, haven't they?

Tell us dianavan how would the US, or anybody else for that matter, "enforce" a democracy? Like your absolutely barmy oil theft statements this too is utterly ridiculous.

The present government in Iraq is a secular two chamber democracy elected on the basis of universal suffrage, or at least that is what the United Nations view it as, as did those international representatives who monitored the elections and formation of the Iraqi Parliament. No doubt you know better, but I would wager that your view on things is based on bugger all apart from your insatiable desire to bash America at every opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 04:14 AM

teribus - "massive strides have been taken"

That still doesn't mean there has been any national, political reconcilliation.

Nor does it mean the Sunnis have been included in any oil deals.

What do you think the country would look like without the U.S. presence? If there were "massive strides," the U.S. wouldn't have to be there to enforce this so-called democracy.

What would you call the present form of government in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Nov 07 - 02:07 AM

Most certainly Guest TIA, are you? "Civil War"? Maybe you should read some history and at least find out what a modern day one looks like, and discover what a successful insurrection requires - It ain't Iraq or Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 11:29 PM

"Whatever did happen to that "civil war" that was tearing Iraq apart?"

Not paying attention are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 07:03 PM

You do not think that there has been progress Dianavan? Why is that because Ron told you so? Because that is what you want to believe? I believe that in an immensely complex situation, massive strides have been taken, I know it doesn't suit your point of view, but there again you can't have everything.

Tell us again about the "neo-con oil barons" stealing Iraqi oil. Whatever did happen to that "civil war" that was tearing Iraq apart.

In terms of timing it is roughly equivalent to what happened in Greece at the end of the Second World War, still early days yet, but I will go along with Guest Homey, "What violence remains is largely local and criminal".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 Nov 07 - 03:15 AM

Since their is no progress in national, political reconciliation don't you think its a bit premature to declare any kind of victory?

Where are the Sunnis in Maliki's democratic government?

In fact, no laws have been passed to equitably divide the oil wealth.

Doesn't sound very democratic to me. Seems to me that in the long run, Maliki would prefer Sadr's Army and the support of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 24 Nov 07 - 08:01 PM

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9804

Mission Accomplished

Bartle Bull

With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one, it has embraced democracy and avoided all-out civil war. What violence remains is largely local and criminal


The question of what to do in Iraq today must be separated from the decision to topple Saddam Hussein four and a half years ago. That decision is a matter for historians. By any normal ethical standard, the coalition's current project in Iraq is a just one. Britain, America and Iraq's other allies are there as the guests of an elected government given a huge mandate by Iraqi voters under a legitimate constitution. The UN approved the coalition's role in May 2003, and the mandate has been renewed annually since then, most recently this August. Meanwhile, the other side in this war are among the worst people in global politics: Baathists, the Nazis of the middle east; Sunni fundamentalists, the chief opponents of progress in Islam's struggle with modernity; and the government of Iran. Ethically, causes do not come much clearer than this one.................

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:55 AM

Precisely, Keith.

However, I'm just waiting for Teribus--or any other supporter of the Iraq war--to tell us how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:45 AM

Is that like "happiness is..." Ron?

Herring is    a kipper in waiting

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:37 AM

"herring, is..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 09:32 AM

Congratulations, Teribus--you're right, you never did say you would tell us how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

You win your point--now you can finally sleep tonight.


Gee, I wonder why you haven't told us about "national reconciliation". Could it be since it's not in fact progressing?--the whole country is breaking up into a crazy-quilt of "Green Zones"--protected by walls and/or the fact that only one faction is dominant within each enclave--either Shiite or Sunni--or in "Kurdistan", the Kurds.

Meanwhile the US arms the Sunnis, and Maliki refuses to incorporate the armed Sunnis into the Iraqi armed forces and police--thereby ensuring an armed Sunni force outside national control.

And Sadr just waits for the "surge" to end and the US to start pulling out.

Yep, it's just hunky-dory in Iraq.

And it's mainly due to the fact that Maliki agrees with you--that all Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945 and deserve "no consideration", in your felicitous phrase.

Now perhaps you can bring yourself to finally give a straight answer to this question: was buying time for"national reconciliation" the ultimate goal of the "surge"?

Yes or no?

No agonizing attempt to bury us in irrelevant lists, gleaned from your ongoing pillaging of the Net for red herring is necessary--for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 05:04 AM

No Teribus, tell us how many refugees are living in Jordan?, as there was no work or accommodation for the Iraqis in Syria they preferred to starve or die in their homeland,this was the reason why they returned to their ravaged homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Nov 07 - 02:28 AM

Ah Ron, so you can't show me where I said that I was going to tell how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

Ron tell us how many Iraqi refugees are now living in Damascus.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 10:28 PM

Teribus--

Can't understand why you don't want to tell us how "national reconciliation" is progressing in Iraq.

Or perhaps, as a fossil in good standing (whoops, sorry about that--just slipped out--) you're back in the good old Vietnam syndrome days--where body count--up or down--was supposed to tell the tale.

Sorry, things have changed. You may want to start reading a bit more.

If you don't believe me that the "surge" was only a means to an end, and that end was "national reconciliation", read what Gen. Petraeus says.

Not that I want to tempt you to take your rose-colored glasses off--I'm afraid you couldn't see at all without them.

But when you're finally ready to face reality, a particularly salient issue which you've been studiously ignoring is, as I've said: the attitude of the Maliki government toward the Sunnis who are now ready to become part of the armed forces and the police.

Since at least Petraeus has been smart enough to completely reject your singularly shortsighted--did I say stupid?--idea that the Sunnis deserve, in your words, "no consideration".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 04:57 AM

Is Teribus still here, I thought he may have booked up for a holiday in Iraq or Afghanistan now that all of the remaining pockets of resistance have been wiped out. Well that`s what he forecast, away back when.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 03:55 AM

Ron Davies - 21 Nov 07 - 12:24 AM

"Teribus--

So, you were going to tell us how "national reconciliation", which all parties agree was the goal of the "surge" is progressing in Iraq."

Now where and when did I say I was going to do that Ron, or is it back to basic English comprehension lessons again.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Nov 07 - 12:24 AM

Teribus--

So, you were going to tell us how "national reconciliation", which all parties agree was the goal of the "surge" is progressing in Iraq.

Gee, you keep forgetting to tell us. Incipient Alzheimer's?

Specifically, how eager is Maliki now to have the Sunnis who are volunteering for service in the police and the armed forces?

If I didn't know you were a towering intellect who also is a brilliant internationally respected foreign policy analyst, I'd be tempted to think you might be a clueless Western military fossil who, like your hero Mr. Bush, refuses to read anything which doesn't support the decision he's already made. Good thing we know you aren't the above-cited fossil.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:43 AM

"I am sure you would never doubt the word of anyone in higher command. For you, blind obedience is a way of life." - Dianavan

For anyone who knows me reading that would render them helpless with laughter. One well respected and very senior Captain(D) during my time in the Navy very forcefully advocated that it was every junior officers duty to knock "the system" as rigorously as they could in order to effect change to meet future requirements. "Blind obedience is a way of life", by God but you're clueless.

Reviewing some of your previous posts Dianavan, both as "dianavan" and "Guest Dianavan" if you are not anti-U.S. then I'd hate to bump into anybody that was.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 12:24 PM

teribus -

Your opinions are coloured by prejudices too. Since you are the father of a military man, and ex-military yourself, I am sure you would never doubt the word of anyone in higher command. For you, blind obedience is a way of life.

I was schooled in the U.S. and taught to question authority. If I have an agenda, perhaps you could explain it to me. I am not anti-U.S. but I do believe their foreign policy has to change.

Since you are not a U.S. citizen but continue to rally behind GWB and his war mongers, I can only deduce that your blind support is that of a man whose livelihood and way of life is threatened by peace and diplomacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 03:13 AM

Now let me see, on whether or not things are working or not. On one side I have the evidence of my own eyes and ears, plus what is and has been reported by General Petraeus and his Staff, on the other I have Ron Davies and Dianavan.

The counter-insurgency situations that I have had personal experience of have been in Borneo and in Northern Ireland, General Petraeus is reportedly the US armed forces expert on counter-insurgency warfare. As opposed to Ron (I-never-read-anything-from-first-hand-source) Davies and a rabidly anti-US, school teacher living in British Columbia. All your opinions are coloured by your prejudices and driven by an agenda that has often got nothing whatsoever to do with the subject you are discussing.

Hope you will not be too offended if I just agree to disagree with the pair of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:44 AM

"What has happened though is that various parties are now prepared to try talking and co-operating."

You are so full of BS, teribus!

What has happened is that Iran has exerted pressure on Sadr and halted the flow of weapons to Iraq. The talking and co-operating has absolutely nothing to do with what the U.S. has done in Iraq. Maliki is the first to tell you so.

The surge accomplished nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 05:51 PM

Teribus--

Whatever you say, Mr. Pollyanna.

All parties said the "surge" itself was only to buy time for "national reconciliation". So where is the "national reconciliation"? And if it is not occurring, why should any "Coalition" soldiers be dying in Iraq--(except possibly in "Kurdistan" where it is obvious they are wanted).

So we are down to "only" 38 or so "Coalition" soldiers dying per month. You and the other Bush apologists should be detailed to explain in person to the parents of each dead soldier just exactly why that death was necessary.

Sunnis are volunteering for the armed forces and the police--mainly since it is a paying job--paid by US taxpayers. But the Maliki government does not want them.

Why? Since the Maliki government has learned from you--that all Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945. That was certainly a brilliant observation on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 03:27 PM

Of course national conciliation was and still is the goal Ron, early days yet but things do seem to be moving in the right direction. What has happened though is that various parties are now prepared to try talking and co-operating. MNF Troops have not been scared off, the "insurgent" groups now realise that they (MNF troops) may be there for the long term and that the "insurgent" groups have not the backing to fight them. This is not the "Cold War" the Russians are not pouring money and resources into backing them just in order to embarrass America. If the insurgency in Iraq was ever to gain any headway it had to scare you off about a year ago, give them their due they did try their best to foment the civil war that you lot kept wittering on about, but they failed, they failed miserably.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 01:03 PM

Interesting that you, Teribus, and your faithful lapdog, Homey, can't seem to find any evidence of the "national reconciliation" which was the goal of the "surge". If you don't believe me that it was the goal, just listen to Petraeus, Bush and the rest of your team.

You're very good at pillaging the Net for meaningless articles, though. Congratulations.

Too bad your posts are full of sound and fury and signifying.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 12:56 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/15/AR2007111502032.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

... Like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who insist that nothing of significance has changed in Iraq, the Democrats are living in what Bob Woodward would call a state of denial. Do they not notice anything?
        
France has a new president who is breaking not just with the anti-Americanism of the Chirac era but also with 50 years of Fifth Republic orthodoxy that defined French greatness as operating in counterpoise to America. Nicolas Sarkozy's trip last week to the United States was marked by a highly successful White House visit and a rousing speech to Congress in which he not only called America "the greatest nation in the world" (how many leaders of any country say that about another?) but also pledged solidarity with the United States on Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. This just a few months after he sent his foreign minister to Iraq to signal an openness to cooperation and an end to Chirac's reflexive obstructionism.

That's France. In Germany, Gerhard Schroeder is long gone, voted out of office and into a cozy retirement as Putin's concubine at Gazprom. His successor is the decidedly pro-American Angela Merkel, who concluded an unusually warm visit with Bush this week. All this, beyond the ken of Democrats, is duly noted by new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who in an interview with Sky News on Sunday remarked on "the great change that is taking place," namely "that France and Germany and the European Union are also moving more closely with America."

As for our other traditional alliances, relations with Australia are very close, and Canada has shown remarkable steadfastness in taking disproportionate casualties in supporting the NATO mission in Afghanistan. Eastern European nations, traditionally friendly, are taking considerable risks on behalf of their U.S. alliance -- for example, cooperating with us on missile defense in the face of enormous Russian pressure. And ties with Japan have never been stronger, with Tokyo increasingly undertaking military and quasi-military obligations that it had forsworn for the past half-century. So much for the disarray of our alliances. The critics will say that all this is simply attributable to the rise of Russia and China causing old allies to turn back to us out of need.

So? I would even add that the looming prospect of a nuclear Iran has caused Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, even Libya -- to rally to us. All true. And it makes the point that the Bush critics have missed for years -- that the strength of alliances is heavily dependent on the objective balance of international forces and has very little to do with the syntax of the U.S. president or the disdain in which he might be held by a country's cultural elites.It's classic balance-of-power theory: Weaker nations turn to the great outside power to help them balance a rising regional threat. Allies are not sentimental about their associations. It is not a matter of affection but of need -- and of the great power's ability to deliver.

What's changed in the past year? Bush's dress and diction remain the same. But he did change generals -- and counterinsurgency strategy -- in Iraq. As a result, Iraq has gone from an apparently lost cause to a winnable one. The rise of external threats to our allies has concentrated their minds on the need for the American connection. The revival of American fortunes in Iraq -- and the diminished prospect of an American rout -- have significantly increased the value of such a connection. This is particularly true among our moderate Arab allies who see us as their ultimate protection against an Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis that openly threatens them all.

It's always uncomfortable for a small power to rely on a hegemon. But a hegemon on the run is even worse. Alliances are always shifting. But one thing we can say with certainty: The event that will have more effect than any other on the strength of our alliances worldwide is not another Karen Hughes outreach to the Muslim world, not an ostentatious embrace of Kyoto or even the most abject embrace of internationalism from the podium of the United Nations. It is success or failure in Iraq....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 08:02 PM

Really, the question whether "the surge" failed or succeeded is a joke... The entire last 5 years plus has been about troop levels which have gone up and down and up and down... "The surge" is just a PR game...

The bottom line isn't about whether or not "the surge" has succeeded but about whether ot not Bush can figure any way to calim victory... That is paramount...

Iraq is quickly bankruptuing the US... We are borrowing from the Chinese to bankroll our war efforts... Domestic p0-riorites are now being looked upon as pipe-dreams... Our currency is falling lijke a stone... Our economy is on the ropes... Our kids futures and their kid futures are being spent every day in spending in Afganistan and Iraq...

This is the reality... It has nothing to do with "the surge"... The us has lost this war regardless of what benchmark it redifines at the one goalpost of what constitutes victory...

We are throwing a billion $$$ a week down the Iraq rathole... Where does this money come from???

Yes, the US has badly lost Iraqumire... Badly... There in no victory to be had... We are hopelessly involved in some sh*t that we should have never taken on... We are screwed and like other empires that have gone before us we may very well be beyond where it is fixable...

This goes way beyond the battlefiled... It goes way beyond UN (usless) resolution... It goes the heart of our economy... That is the real war now... The other war is allready lost and now it's goin' to take some serious changes to survive this ill-though-out imperialistic/colonialistic ventures by the neocons and the Bush administartion...

If I were a betting man, I'd give the US only a 50/50 chance of surviving Bush...

No matter, the next president better be ready to do some very serious cleaning up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 06:50 PM

So the "Surge" didn't fail then Ron, because that is what that prat Binden preached to General Petraeus when he came to deliver his Report last September.

As I've stated previously Ron the current crop of Democratic hopefuls for nomination, they couldn't even lead a dog on a leash.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:51 PM

And of course, please give your exact sources and dates. Not that we wouldn't trust you to be completely objective. Heaven forbid.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:39 PM

Since you, Teribus, and your current sidekick, have not figured out the reason for the "surge", I'll have to tell you. It was "national reconciliation". Ever heard of that?

Now, tell us how much of that has happened. Especially, how eager is the Maliki government to have the Sunnis who now are ready to join the armed forces or the police?

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 02:23 PM

U.S. pulling 3,000 troops from Iraq's Diyala province
Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:28pm EST Reuters

By Missy Ryan

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military is sending 3,000 soldiers home from Diyala province, the second large unit to leave Iraq as troop levels are cut after a 30,000-strong "surge" earlier this year.

Soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, will not be replaced by a new unit when they leave the ethnically and religiously mixed province north of Baghdad by January, military officials said on Tuesday.

Instead, troops from the larger 4th Striker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, located near Baghdad, will take over the area, said military spokeswoman Major Peggy Kageleiry.

"Most of the (brigade) will be home by Christmas and indeed a few people have left," Kageleiry said.

About 2,200 Marines from the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit left western Anbar province in late September under President George W. Bush's plan to cut troop levels in Iraq.

Bush poured in an extra 30,000 troops from mid-February in a bid to stop Iraq spiraling into sectarian civil war. There are around 162,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon said.

U.S. and Iraqi officials say the troop "surge", more efficient Iraqi security forces and the use of neighborhood patrols have helped bring about sharp falls in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties in the past two months.

Kageleiry said the overall number of troops in Diyala, where violence spiked when al Qaeda fighters were driven out of western Anbar province earlier this year, would not decrease.

With the daily toll of suicide bombs, sectarian killings and other violence slowing, General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, plans to pull out five of his 20 brigades in Iraq by July 2008.

"The security situation in northern Iraq has improved exponentially," Kageleiry said. "The ultimate goal is to transition Iraqi security forces to be able to provide security to citizens of Diyala independent of coalition forces."

Mortar and rocket attacks dropped to their lowest level in October since February 2006. In Baghdad, Iraqi military officials plan to reopen some streets and hope to end a joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad soon.

Despite the security improvements, 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. soldiers since the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, with 857 killed so far.

The U.S. military says drawdowns in troops will occur only where security conditions allow. Other areas in northern Iraq such as Mosul, Iraq's third largest city, often suffers fierce fighting between security forces and al Qaeda.

The troop surge and improved security were meant to pave the way for political progress on legislative benchmarks designed to promote national reconciliation, but progress has been slow.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USRYA32414220071113

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 04:05 AM

Then Ron, like Joe Binden, you can tell us that the "Surge" has had no effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 11:11 PM

Truly fascinating, Homey. Mind if we call you Pollyanna for short? (Actually not short).

When you get finished pillaging the web for happy happy news, perhaps you can tell us what the reason for the "surge" was. Don't worry, if you can't figure it out, we can help you.

Then we can discuss what progress there has been in that area. I'll clue you: virtually none.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 16 Nov 07 - 08:07 AM

US-Iraqi Forces launch attack against Qaeda
Alsumaria Iraqi Satellite Network
Friday, November 16, 2007 09:14 GMT
600 US and Iraqi troops backed by air force launched an attack on Al Awsat and Al Batraa villages in Anbar province in an attempt to chase down militants thought be Al Qaeda members hiding among residents. Colonel Dominic Caraccilo, commander of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division said that this operation is aimed to set a line of combat bases to protect the southern part of Baghdad. According to the Intelligence Official in the Division, the operation is also a bid to find two missing US soldiers kidnapped on May in an ambush on their patrol near the village of Karguli east of the Euphrates. For his part, Major Jason Waggoner noted that the troops will later build a bridge across the river connecting Awsat with the east side of the Euphrates. The bridge will also facilitate troop movements, especially those involved in the search for the two missing soldiers, he added.

http://www.alsumaria.tv/en/Iraq-News/1-10249-US-Iraqi-Forces-launch-attack-against-Qaeda.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 14 Nov 07 - 10:27 PM

7,000 Families Return to Iraq: Iraqi PM Maliki
'Pakistan Times' Monitoring Desk

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/11/12/top10.htm

BAGHDAD (Iraq): Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Sunday that 7,000 families who fled the war-ravaged country have returned to their homes on the back of a sharp drop in violence.

"Due to the improvement in the security situation, 7,000 families have returned to Baghdad and other provinces," Maliki told reporters, without giving a time frame.

He said the country's streets and markets were returning to normal after a series of security crackdowns by Iraqi and US security forces over the past eight months.

"People are enjoying the life that is returning to their streets and markets. We have been able to return life after eight months of a security crackdown."

On Wednesday, Brigadier General Qassim Ata, spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, said that 46,000 Iraqis who had fled the violence returned to the country last month.

Maliki said car bombs and roadside bombings had dropped by 77 percent compared to levels prior to February when US and Iraqi troops launched a major drive against insurgents and militias in Baghdad and its surrounds.

"Many terrorists have fled the country and some are hiding here and there. Our expertise in chasing terrorists has also developed."

Maliki's comments came just hours after a roadside bomb attack on a US military convoy in Baghdad's eastern Al-Baladiyat suburb, which an Iraqi security official said killed a 12-year-old girl and wounded three other civilians.

US military spokesman Major Winfield Danielson confirmed the attack but said there were no casualties.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Homey
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 06:44 PM

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10166531.html

Former Al Qaida members take up painting houses for a living

By Basil Adas, Correspondent
Published: November 10, 2007, 18:22

Baghdad: After years of carrying weapons, dozens of Iraqi elements who were involved in Al Qaida have turned professional painters for a living.

Now they carry paint brushes and paint houses in bright colours in Al Saydia, Al Baya'a, Al Qadissia and Al Yarmouk neighbourhoods in Baghdad.

Abu Saher told Gulf News: "I have lived in Al Qadissia neighbourhood for 40 years. I know personally all youth who were involved with Al Qaida over the past two years and I have known them since their birth."

He continued: "A few weeks ago Fakheri, Uday, Abdul Salam and Mahdi used to carry weapons but now they have turned painters after buying painting tools and equipment. This is a positive development and the most important is that they do not use this job to facilitate kidnapping and killing people."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 05:40 AM

Dianavan, I would suggest you go to Google type in "Oil Who Gets What?" It's an OPEC site it tells you the FOB price of oil in a whole rake of countries, then gives the Company mark up and most important of all the tax taken by each country (55% for the UK per barrel - not bad when you consider that they have not spent, or risked, a penny to accrue that major slice of the pie).

"Some would refer to these oil barons as neo-cons." - In no way, shape, or form dianavan. Purely by it's nature and the places that they do business the international oil business and companies involved in it have to be extremely flexible and pragmatic enterprises, if they weren't they wouldn't survive.

"We think the proposed oil law doesn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people at all," said Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, at a news conference in New York on June 18. "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields."

Well dianavan everybody knows what thought did. I would like to ask this buffoon exactly how, "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields." when there is not one single Iraqi oil field in existence, or in prospect, being developed or operated by an American oil company. The man is talking out of his arse, like most Union officials when addressing the media, normally a load of ill-informed, misleading, populist crap designed to inflame the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 03:09 PM

"Equal sharing" among the conflicted groups in Iraq sounds good. But the oil law giving most of Iraq's oil wealth to private foreign oil companies is the only "hydrocarbon law" under consideration by Iraq's parliament. So all the talk by U.S. politicians and news media about "equitable distribution of oil revenue" between Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions is really about "equitably sharing" the mere 12 or 13 percent of Iraqi oil revenues that would be left over after the big oil companies have fattened themselves."

"Under the proposed oil law, big oil companies would be awarded "production-sharing agreements." These are very different from the service contracts under which oil companies operate in other Middle East countries. Under a service contract, control over oil resources and profits remains exclusively with the country's government. But with production-sharing agreements, Iraq would give up control over its oil, and much of its national independence, to oil executives. Foreign oil companies could repatriate (take home) all the profits they make, reinvesting nothing in Iraq, and they would likely be given seats on the "Oil and Gas Council" that would award contracts."

Support the Iraq Labour Unions

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org./

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:52 PM

You're right teribus, I am not an expert on the oil industry and my use of the phrase "oil baron" is only used to reflect those captains of industry that make huge profits from extracting and transporting oil. Some would refer to these oil barons as neo-cons.

I will choose to believe the following statement rather than any convulted explanation you have to offer. You have no interest in protecting the rights of the Iraqi people.

"We think the proposed oil law doesn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people at all," said Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, at a news conference in New York on June 18. "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:36 AM

1) "In Iraq ALL pipeline transportation systems are OWNED by the State run Oil Company. Not one drop of Iraqi oil can go anywhere without their approval, they control the flow, not "the U.S. oil barons" (even if they were present in Iraq, which they are not), or the executives of the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies who are operating in Iraq."

Dianavan, please point to anything stated above that is inaccurate. By the bye Dianavan, you still haven't identified the "U.S. oil barons" who you keep telling us are stealing Iraq's oil.

2) "Apparently you will have to convince the people of Iraq that the oil bill, which is being pushed by the U.S., is not an attempt at privatization."

No dianavan, oddly enough I do not have to convince the people of anywhere of anything. With regard to the international oil industry dianavan you appear to not have the foggiest clue on the subject and also appear to be prepared to believe absolutely anything about it provided it reflects badly on the U.S. A few examples of "privatized" oil industries, Norway, UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Mauritania,Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Angola, etc, etc. In all those countries private enterprise has been used to discover, extract and produce the oil for sale on the world market. The oil/gas dianavan is still owned by the Governments of those countries as a natural national resource, privatisation allows them to reap the benefits of those resources without them having to spent one penny on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:10 AM

teribus - "In Iraq ALL pipeline transportation systems are OWNED by the State run Oil Company. Not one drop of Iraqi oil can go anywhere without their approval, they control the flow, not "the U.S. oil barons" (even if they were present in Iraq, which they are not), or the executives of the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies who are operating in Iraq."

You also said, "...International Oil Companies do not, nor ever have, favoured privatisation, the administration of GWB does not favour privatisation and in fact is pushing for Iraq's oil industry to be run on a nationalised basis."

Apparently you will have to convince the people of Iraq that the oil bill, which is being pushed by the U.S., is not an attempt at privatization. Luckily, I think you have very little influence in Iraq.

"While pressure on the Baghdad government mounted, Iraqi oil unions staged protests in early June. Many Iraqis believe the measure would drive the oil industry toward privatization and unfairly benefit outside oil companies.

"We think the proposed oil law doesn't serve the interests of the Iraqi people at all," said Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Southern Oil Company Union and the Iraqi Federation of Oil Workers' Unions, at a news conference in New York on June 18. "It emphasizes or confirms American hegemony over Iraqi oil fields."

The unions have said they worry negotiations could result in a law that would give foreign companies too much influence. But details of how foreign investors would be involved are still being nailed down, said David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east/jan-june07/iraqoil_06-22.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 10:27 PM

BAGHDAD: A majority in Parliament voted Monday in favor of a resolution to remove their speaker, Mahmoud Mashadani, in the coming days, underscoring widespread discontent with a Sunni Arab politician who has done little to build consensus among Iraq's political blocs.

Of the 168 Parliament members present at the session, 113 voted in favor of the resolution, which accepted a pledge from the Sunni Arab coalition that had backed Mashadani that he would submit his resignation when a replacement was found. In the meantime, Mashadani, who is known for his violent outbursts, will be on leave.

Among those who voted to remove the speaker were Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

"What happened today made obvious the dynamic of democracy in Iraq," said Hassan Sinead, a member of Parliament from the Shiite Dawa party. "The Parliament today had a peaceful, impartial, a democratic operation" to remove the speaker.

"The view of all the blocs in the Parliament was that Mashadani made the process complicated and decreased the harmony," he added...."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/11/africa/iraq.php

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 12 Jun 07 - 02:46 AM

teribus - You are so very English! I actually had to look up the word, PRAT. I guess if you can call me a PRAT, I can ask why it is that you English gentlemen enjoy kissing American butt?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 08:52 PM

Teribus--

It's just too easy to destroy your arguments--hardly worth the effort. All I have to do is quote your own words back to you.

I'm so sorry you evidently did not understand what I told you earlier.

You were telling us, with your happy drivel, that it took 15 years for Bosnia to sort out its problems. This is supposed to convince us that therefore in about 15 years or so, Iraq's problems will be sorted out--so we should stay there.

It's so good of you to recognize reality for once--that it was not Bosnia but Yugoslovia which broke up. It's too bad that recognizing reality seems to be so hard for you--but, trust me, in the long run you'll feel better for it.

However, since it's not Bosnia but Yugoslavia which broke up, your model is not exactly helpful to your argument. Following the model you have so helpfully provided, in 15 years, not Iraq, but just a part of the wrecked state formerly called Iraq, will have sorted out its problems. Yet this is not what Mr. Bush is telling us. He is saying that Iraq will remain a unified state. Not according to your model, it won't.

Now, why would that be, o brilliant analyst?

But let me compliment you on your insight: I think you are absolutely correct--the perfect model for Iraq is Yugoslavia. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq will be shattered, and will remain a shattered state.

No matter what we do.

So you have destroyed your own argument for staying in Iraq.

Well done. Good job.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 07:38 PM

Ha ha ha ha ha. Read the whole article you link referred to plus the messages at the end.

Dianavan neither yourself or Congressman Dennis Kucinich has actually been able to tell any of us here on this Forum exactly how the "big bad, evil" USA is going to steal Iraq's oil. I am waiting for you, or him to do so. Must be awfuly difficult with no major US oil company present in Iraq and no US oil company with so much as a licence to operate a single oilfield or expolation concession in Iraq.

If you, or anybody else would like me to take your whole link article by article and rip it to shit, I will willingly do so - it is entirely laughable. You haven't the foggiest clue about what you are talking about.

As for Congressman Dennis Kucinich, he is in the process of getting himself elected, or at least on some sort of ticket to get himself elected. He is on some sort of populist trip to aid that process and there are enough gullible PRATS (like yourself) out there that will fall for this sort of shit because:

1) You would dearly love to believe it

2) He spouts it because he (Congressman Dennis Kucinich) knows that you bear this totally irrational hatred for the current President.

Unfortunately, the desire to believe that it is true does not actually make it true in any way shape or form. Fact still remains the US takes slightly less than 500,000 barrels of oil from Iraq each day, which amounts to about 25% of their production and 2.5% of the oil needs of the US per day.

Piece of advice dianavan if you are going to argue base that arguement on fact - not supposition - not opinion

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 01:08 PM

"The law before the Iraq Parliament contains 3 vague lines about revenue sharing and 33 solid pages of a complex legal restructuring, facilitating the privatization of Iraq's oil resources. The sharing will not be 1/3 of 100%. The sharing is more likely to be 1/3 of 20% at most, after private oil interests take their cut. The stage is being set for theft on a historic scale."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/22362

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:43 AM

"If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold U.S. reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there."

So dianavan it is the US House of Representatives and the US Senate that want Iraqi oil privatised. Nothing to do with GWB then as both houses are Democrat controlled.

One thing is for certain the "big bad western oil companies" are dead set against privatisation. Check out what Philip Carroll's views on the subject were and still are. He was the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion.

Current US Government thinking, or at least that dating back to 2004, are revealed in documents obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act. They called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas.

"Questioned by BBC Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatisation. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.

Ms Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec and the current high oil price: "I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."

The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight: "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this, that and the other. International oil companies, without exception, are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."

So the final upshot would appear to be that International Oil Companies do not, nor ever have, favoured privatisation, the administration of GWB does not favour privatisation and in fact is pushing for Iraq's oil industry to be run on a nationalised basis and it is only the Democrat controlled US Congress that is pushing for privatisation - (Don't think so, I believe dianavan has, as she has done in the past, dug up some ancient article and resurrected it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Jun 07 - 12:07 AM

In plain language - The U.S. wants Iraqi oil privatized.

"If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold U.S. reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there."

I'm not going to bother to provide a source. I did that a few days ago. I guess you must have a problem with your visual memory.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 09:44 PM

So, Teribus, I note that you have come up with precisely no evidence that I said the US had stolen or would steal Iraq's oil. Nor have you found any information to contradict any of what I said in my last posting.

I certainly recognize that that doesn't stop you, as a Bushite in good standing, from making wild accusations. So now the question becomes--are both thinking and reading carefully against your religion? Since avoiding both seems to be your credo.

Certainly is good we know you're not a Western military fossil hopelessly out of his depth outside Europe. Otherwise, an uncharitable reader might suspect that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 01:23 PM

Exactly who are these "U.S. oil barons" who would benefit dianavan?

At present there are NO American oil companies present in Iraq.

I am at least encouraged that we have established the fact that the Government of Iraq has not mentioned any intention of pulling out of OPEC. The US has got no influence whatsoever on whether Iraq is a member of OPEC or not, so the "what if" conjecture is a pointless exercise.

But to return to one point of conjecture in your post relating to the U.S. oil barons:

"..the U.S. oil barons would benefit by not being restricted by OPEC regulations."

Now how do they benefit? By increasing production (if they could) and lowering the price per barrel? Hardly in their interests I would say.

In Iraq ALL pipeline transportation systems are OWNED by the State run Oil Company. Not one drop of Iraqi oil can go anywhere without their approval, they control the flow, not "the U.S. oil barons" (even if they were present in Iraq, which they are not), or the executives of the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies who are operating in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 01:03 PM

What would happen if Iraq did leave OPEC?

Seems to me that although OPEC might not be weakened, the U.S. oil barons would benefit by not being restricted by OPEC regulations. Can you offer your ideas on the possibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 06:07 AM

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973–1992); Gabon (1975–1994) and Angola (2007). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna, Austria, on September 1, 1965.


OPEC's objective is to co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry."

The above is quoted from OPEC' own website, so I assume that they know what they are talking about.

Now let's have a look at some of James Paul's predictions:

1) "OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system."

OPEC is an "intergovernmental Organization" - It has got nothing to do with individual Oil Companies. Exactly when and where has Iraq (a founder member) intimated that it was going to leave OPEC, or even vaguely considered making such a move?

2) "Depending on how things shape up in the next few months, Western oil companies could end up controlling the country's output levels, or the government, heavily influenced by the United States, could even pull out of the cartel entirely."

Eh? No, that is not the way things work. OPEC Members, Government Ministers, agree production quotas. The Energy Ministries in the individual countries then tell those holding licences to produce what the production rates are to be. The individual oil companies cannot circumvent this in any OPEC country as to do so would be to run the risk of losing their licences.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 04:26 AM

oops, that was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 04:26 AM

"Depending on how Iraq's petroleum law shakes out, the country's enormous reserves could break the back of OPEC, a wet dream in Western capitals for three decades. James Paul predicted that "even before Iraq had reached its full production potential of 8 million barrels or more per day, the companies would gain huge leverage over the international oil system. OPEC would be weakened by the withdrawal of one of its key producers from the OPEC quota system." Depending on how things shape up in the next few months, Western oil companies could end up controlling the country's output levels, or the government, heavily influenced by the United States, could even pull out of the cartel entirely."

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=97835&messages=637&page=1&desc=yes#2068792

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 07 - 04:09 AM

"..they (the US) will make sure they have access to the oil in Kurdistan." - Dianavan

Care to let us in on how exactly?

Or do you mean that, if required, the US will buy oil from the Kurdish region of Iraq in exactly the same manner as anyone else paying market price for it?

The US certainly do not own it (Kurdish Oil), nor can they ever own the natural resources of any other sovereign state. Holding a licence to extract and operate an oilfield means exactly that, ownership of the resource remains national. The licence can be revoked at any time.

No US company holds any licence to extract oil from any oilfield in the Kurdish area of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:57 AM

"didn't need such instruction."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 07 - 09:56 AM

Teribus--

So sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this recently.

You really need a course in reading, in the worst way. Oh, sorry--you already read in the worst way.

Please be so good as to cite one quote--or even an implication-- by me that "the US has stolen Iraq's oil" or plans to do so. Good luck. My observation-- that Sunnis in the Iraq parliament feel the proposed hydrocarbon law gives too much to international oil companies--was taken directly from the Wall St Journal. I don't make up events I report--perhaps you do?

I have consistently held to the proposition that it is essential that the Maliki government take Sunni concerns into consideration, and pointed out the vast difference between "Kurdistan"--which, as much as you refuse to admit it, is becoming more Western oriented--and secular-----and the rest of "Iraq". ("Kurdistan" is even making a pitch for foreigners--including Westerners-to come live in luxury gated communities it is building). General attitudes and oil arrangements between "Kurdistan" and the rest of "Iraq" differ drastically.

And, by the way, you continue your virtually perfect record of error with your assurance that Turkey would not attack "Kurdistan". As I pointed out, Turkey cannot forever let the PKK rebels operate with impunity. And, for obvious reasons, "Kurdistan" will not rein them in. The Turkish raids appear to be increasing in size. We can only hope that they will decrease when the internal Turkish political situation stabilizes. But it's fairly obvious that Turkey will not get EU membership anytime soon--so hope of that will be no brake.

I'm so sorry that you evidently feel left out that I don't tell you to look up words, as I tell Dickey. And here I thought you were an educated--if ego-chained-- person--and didn't such instruction. Guess I was wrong about the "educated" part.

And I hope you get more sleep--had to answer at 5:15 AM your time? Pobrecito.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 10:47 PM

"...Responding to a request by the Iraqi Prime Minister [Maliki], the Security Council today extended the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until the end of next year, deciding that it should be reviewed at the request of that country's Government or no later than 15 June 2007. The Council also declared that it would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq..."


http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 11:58 AM

Since you have practically begged for it, and it seems sooooo important to you, here is my official prediction for what would happen if the US brings its troops home from Iraq.

There will be sectarian and ethnic violence of excatly the type we are seeing right now, but worse. Some Sunni and/or arab groups will be secratly backed by the Saudis. Some Shia groups will be secretly - or perhaps openly - backed by Iran.

This violence has been trying to happen for a thousand years or more, and has been forestalled by colonial powers, and then by Saddam. We are trying to prevent it, but do not have the cruel immorality to stop it the way Saddam did - by making everyone fear him more that "the others" they want to kill. We cannot stop it while we are there unless we become like Saddam.

If we leave, there will be a more open and bloody civil war than the one going on already (but there will be no US troops to target). Eventually it will stop, but the suffering will be huge. Look no further than Yugoslavia for the best recent analog.

There. Happy?

And, just remember, whether this particular prediction comes to pass or not, does not make you any less wrong about Iraq.

Bobert was right.

You were wrong.

We will see whether I am right or wrong.

Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:41 AM

If the U.S. is powerless to stop the division of Iraq, they will make sure they have access to the oil in Kurdistan.

Does that answer your question, teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 12:15 AM

"If the Kurds in "Kurdistan" insist on continuing to make separate oil deals without regard to the Baghdad government--which they are now doing--and especially if they start withholding oil revenue from the central government, what is to stop the Shiites in the south from pushing for a similar arrangement?

If that happens, so much for any chance for Iraq as a unified state.

And the US has precious little influence to prevent any of this." - From the "pen" of Ron (Look-It-Up) Davies.

Wait a minute Ron, I thought that the likes of yourself, dianavan, Foolestroupe, Akenaton, Stringsinger, et al (the anti-war, anti-Bush, trendy-left mob) were firmly of the opinion and belief that the US had stolen "Iraq's Oil". Now just because it suits your arguement, or some spurious and ill founded point you are trying to make, you say that - "the US has precious little influence to prevent any of this" when it comes to matters relating to Iraqi oil? Chose one horse or the other sunshine you can't ride both in this race.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 04 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM

You are welcome, Master.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 12:18 PM

Thanks so much for yet another meaningless article, Dickey. So the Kurds were happy to see the invasion of Iraq. This is a revelation? I like apple pie. I expect you do too. Am I right--or are you a subversive defeatist who doesn't like it?

And as I've said before, "Kurdistan"--with Kirkuk and its oil-- which they will probably have by the end of this year---- is likely to be the fall-back position for the US. It's turning more and more Western-oriented--and secular--though Teribus chooses not to see this.

But that is no solution for Iraq--in fact may be a serious danger. If the Kurds in "Kurdistan" insist on continuing to make separate oil deals without regard to the Baghdad government--which they are now doing--and especially if they start withholding oil revenue from the central government, what is to stop the Shiites in the south from pushing for a similar arrangement?

If that happens, so much for any chance for Iraq as a unified state.

And the US has precious little influence to prevent any of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:56 AM

I don't expect a prediction, just whining because a prediction was requested. Nobody advocating a withdrawal wants to say what the results might be.

Kurdish Demonstrators Back War Against Hussein but Want Gas Masks
The New York Times By C. J. CHIVERS January 29, 2003

SULAIMANIYA, Iraq, Jan. 28 — A small group of Kurds gathered outside a United Nations compound here today, voicing support for a war to remove President Saddam Hussein from power but demanding international help to protect Kurdish civilians from chemical or biological attacks.
    The demonstration, which included several survivors of previous chemical attacks by the Iraqi military, was modest in size and subdued in tone.
    The protesters simply stood quietly outside the compound, in a cold rain, holding photographs of their injured and their dead. But the undercurrent of support for war stood in relief to larger and more strident demonstrations occurring in nations around the world.
    "We want to change the Iraqi regime," said Dr. Fayaq Muhammad Golpi, a surgeon and head of the Anti-Chemical Weapons Society of Kurdistan, the nonprofit group that organized the event. "If this change is peaceful, it would be better than if there was war. But the change is necessary, even if this means fighting."
    The demonstration also brought to the surface the persistent public worry here about the Kurds' vulnerability to a chemical or biological strike by Mr. Hussein.
    Sulaimaniya, like the large Kurdish cities of Erbil and Dohuk, is a short drive from Iraqi Army positions. As Kurds count down the days to a war they expect to start soon, they know that this is a land virtually without chemical protective gear, where medical supplies are limited and specialized drugs to combat chemical injury are all but nonexistent.
    For example, there are nearly four million people in the region of northern Iraq that is beyond the control of Mr. Hussein's government. Recent tours of markets here found only about two dozen aging gas masks for sale in Erbil, many with cracked eyepieces and almost all with expired filters. In Sulaimaniya, merchants say a stock of about 200 masks sold out long ago.
    It comes as little surprise, then, that Kurds express deep misgivings about their fate at the hands of a desperate or vengeful President Hussein if the United States attacks Iraq.
    "We are afraid," said Muhammad Amin Abdullah, standing in a line of people holding photographs of Kurds killed in a chemical attack by Iraq on the town of Halabja in 1988.
    An estimated 5,000 Kurdish civilians died in that attack. In dozens of interviews in the last two months with Kurdish doctors and officials, all have said that Kurds are not much better protected today than they were then, and that to improve preparations they need outside help.
    To that end, demonstrators today delivered a letter to the United Nations asking for shipments of chemical protective equipment. Dr. Golpi, who treated victims of chemical attacks when he was with Kurdish guerrillas in the mountains in the 1980's, said the United Nations must also provide antibiotics, eyedrops, ointments and bandages.
    The supplies would be necessary, he said, if a significant number of people were injured by nerve or mustard gas, which Iraq used on Kurds in the 1980's, or biological agents, which Kurds believe that Iraq now possesses.
    United Nations officials here declined to comment on the request, citing a policy under which its employees are generally forbidden to speak with foreign journalists in northern Iraq.
    In Washington, an American official said the Bush administration was reviewing options to provide that kind of assistance. "We're looking at it very seriously," he said.
    The official said there were several possible obstacles, including restrictions in United Nations resolutions and American trade law on importing materials into Iraq, as well as concerns that some chemical defense gear could fall into the hands of Iraqi agents. But he added, "We're looking at it with an intent to be helpful."
    In recent weeks, people opposed to renewed military action in Iraq have demonstrated in scores of cities, including Montreal, London, Berlin, Frankfurt, Brussels, Sydney and Istanbul.
    Some demonstrators have used gimmicks, including 30 people who removed their clothes and lay down in a street in Britain, aligning their naked bodies to form the word peace.
    Kurds resorted to no such tricks. Unlike the demonstrators elsewhere, these Kurds expressed a sentiment that is common here. They said they lived close enough to Mr. Hussein to know his government and to fear it.
    They said they were willing to risk war to have him removed.
    Later in the day, flashes of Kurdish optimism returned. Abdul-Razzaq Mirza, the minister of relations and cooperation for the eastern Kurdish zone, said he was confident that even if no one else offered assistance to defend against chemical or biological attacks, the United States would do so before long.
    "They have not given it to us yet," he said. "But I am sure they are going to help us. They are not going to leave us to genocide again."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 10:13 AM

Okay, no more make nice.

This is the stuff that makes people "adversarial"...

"The defeatiists here will go to their graves thinking surrender was the right thing to do."

And you can blather on all you want about wanting new predictions. Fact is, many here did predict exactly what is now happening in Iraq. They were entirely correct. You can whine for a new test all you want. They were correct.

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

In that case dianavan why has the Government of Iraq requested the continued presence of the MNF on Iraq soil?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 03:28 AM

The Iraqis wanted Saddam out but they do not want U.S. occupation. They want to solve their own problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 03 Jun 07 - 12:58 AM

Not to be obtuse, selective quoting or Weasely, I would like to know what would happen in Uraq if the US were to pull out.

I don't consider "chaos", a link to a site that does not answer the question or "they will sort it out" as a sufficient answer.

People here claim to have accurately predicted events in Iraq so they should be quite capable of making this prediction.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:04 PM

"Do you always get so adversarial when someone disagrees with you and asks question of you?"

Nope.

Only when people seem to be intentionally obtuse, selectively quote, or use weasely wording.

If you are not consciously doing any of this, I apologize, and will no longer debate you.

Sincerely, not sarcastically.

Honest.

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 12:09 PM

Because he is hard to catch.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 11:46 AM

So why hasn't the U.S. been able to capture bin Laden.

Too many troops in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 01:38 AM

Do you always get so adversarial when someone disagrees with you and asks question of you?

I was asked something and I gave an answer. I have asked what will happen if the US pulls out of Iraq and I get one word answers and a wild goose chase. Now in retaliaton I get an argument about something else.

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

From: Dickey - PM
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:08 AM

Dianavan:

What interest did al-Qaeda have in Afghanistan? The US left out of there after they helped them drive out the Russians.

al-Qaeda is in Lebanon stirring up shit there. Is that because the US military is there?

Who should pull out of Lebanon so al-Qeada would loose interest and go home? Where would al-Qaeda go home to?

Why is al-Qaeda in Somalia? Morroco? Algeria? Indonesia? Phillipines? India?

You have answered nothing.


Tell me which part of this is not true:

Al-Qaeda's was formed to eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradication "infidels" (that includes you), elimination of Israel, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate, Islamic government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world.

According to this CNN special, UBL got pissed at the US because SA asked the US for help and turned him down:

CNN presents In the Footsteps of bin Laden, with Christiane Amanpour.

IV.        Birth of al Qaeda—1988-1990

He helped achieve victory over the Soviets. He was a hero in Afghanistan. Now what?

Became allied with Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Eygptian radical who had been imprisoned by inciting violence in Egypt. Al-Zawahiri was critical secular govenments in the Middle East and wanted to overthrow govts to create more fundamental Islamic states.

Bin Laden's former mentor, Abdullah Azzan, was against this thinking as it put Muslim against Muslim.

Al Qaeda, meaning "The Base" is formed. Osama bin-Laden handles al-Qaeda's finances and al-Zawahiri handles strategic operations. Al-Qaeda's objectives: eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, destroy infidels, and create a new Islamic state.

V.        Iraq Invates Kuwait—1990

August 1990: Iraq, with Saddam Hussain at the helm, invades neighboring country of Kuwait. Saudi Arabia, also feeling threatened, asks the US for help.

Bin Laden volunteers his "army," but is reflused. Instead US troops land on Saudi soil.

Bin Laden goes nuts. The infidel is in the Holy land. He criticizes the royal family and loses favor with the govt there.

VI.        On the Brink 1991 – 1996

In Sudan. In the early 1990s, a radical govt opened its doors to extremists. Bin Laden attracted to Sudan as he is looking for an Islamic utopia. Working as a businessman. Sees himself as a holy man. He had been forced to flee SA for speaking out against the govt.

February 23, 1993, the WTC was attacked by a bomb in a truck in an underground parking garage. Arrests of men with links to bin Laden. Bin Laden denies responsibility, but his influences are indisputable.

Blind Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman had close ties to Ayman al-Zawahiri, a fellow Egyptian.

In 1994, Saudi Arabia froze his assets and his family publicly disowned him. In 1975, in an open letter to King Fahd, he denounced the royal family and their ties to the US. Shortly after, there was a bombing at Khobar Towers, an apartment complex in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, that housed many foreign military personnel, including Americans. Bomb killed 19 American servicemen and injured hundreds of all nationalities.

Bin Laden makes video applauding the action.

Pressure is put on the Sudanese govt to expel bin Laden. Bin Laden flees to Afghanistan.

VII.        The First Warning—1996 – 1998

Back to Afghanistan, where bin Laden feels comfortable, stripped of his Saudi citizenship, he mounts his war against the US.

Bin Laden had a media advisor. 1997, He gave CNN a TV interview. High security. Message is that the next war was against the US because the US policies are unjust. US civilians are not targets, but we cannot guarantee their safety.

May 1998 ABC interviews bin Laden. Bin Laden was using the media to get across his message. Ayman al-Zawahiri was also there. Show that al Qaeda is global. Message is that America is the biggest terrorist. He was foreshadowing the plan for 9/11. He was doing advanced publicity for 9/11. Predicting a black day for the US, after which the US will never be the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 04:41 PM

No, that specific sentence may not, but if you read on just a tiny bit in your own cut-n-paste it does...

"Colonialism and its followers, the apostate rulers, then started to openly erect crusader centers, societies, and organizations like Masonic Lodges, Lions and Rotary clubs, and foreign schools."

No matter how you try to parse it, your posting thoroughly agrees with mine. Ouch.

Just a reminder, "colonialism" is pretty much synonymous with "outside invaders" - in this context and most others that I can think of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 03:24 PM

Your quote confirms what TIA said, al Qaeda "was formed to protect muslim countries from "outside invaders".

It says nothing about outside invaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 02:23 PM

And you supplied it for us :)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 11:42 AM

Personal attacks in lieu of facts will prove your point everytime but you left out the Tra la la la la part.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 09:02 AM

Worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 07 - 01:43 AM

In this context, apostate rulers mean those that have given up the Muslim faith. It means exactly the same thing as, "There were some members who also thought that Al-Quaeda should try to overthrow non-islamist governments in muslim countries."

Are you really that stupid or are you just trying to drive people crazy by acting stupid?

I'm giving up on you, Dickey. Its like talking to a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:53 PM

Al-Qaeda's objectives: eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, destroy infidels, and create a new Islamic state.

http://134.210.115.43/manila/gems/crossfs/CNNpresentsIntheFootstepsofb.doc

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:51 PM

Dianavan:

"after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation."

It says apostate rulers who took over, not outsiders.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:46 PM

That's still not *here* is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 31 May 07 - 11:40 PM

Sunnis revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq
By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press Writers Thu, May. 31, 2007

BAGHDAD --
U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors.

Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to a councilman and other residents of the Sunni district.

The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces.

Three more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in combat, raising the number of American deaths to at least 122 for May, making it the third deadliest month for Americans in the conflict. The military said two soldiers died Wednesday from a roadside bomb in Baghdad and one died of wounds inflicted by a bomb attack northwest of the capital Tuesday.

Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. He said the battles raged Wednesday and Thursday but died off at night.

Although al-Qaida is a Sunni organization opposed to the Shiite Muslim-dominated government, its ruthlessness and reliance on foreign fighters have alienated many Sunnis in Iraq.

The U.S. military congratulated Amariyah residents for standing up to al-Qaida.

"The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said.

A U.S. military officer, who agreed to discuss the fight only if not quoted by name because the information was not for release, said the Army was checking reports of a big al-Qaida enclave in Amariyah housing foreign fighters, including Afghans, doing temporary duty in Iraq.

U.S.-funded Alhurra television reported that non-Iraqi Arabs and Afghans were among the fighters over the past two days. Kuehl said he could not confirm those reports.

The heaviest fighting came at 11 a.m. when gunmen - identified by residents as al-Qaida fighters - began shooting randomly into the air, forcing people to flee into their homes and students from classrooms.

http://www.sunherald.com/311/story/66573.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 07 - 02:37 AM

Dickey - READ CAREFULLY

"After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation. These .rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves. Moslems have endured all kinds of harm, oppression, and torture at their hands."

Your quote confirms what TIA said, al Qaeda "was formed to protect muslim countries from "outside invaders". There were some members who also thought that Al-Quaeda should try to overthrow non-islamist governments in muslim countries. There was no original intent to attack the US or the west in the US or the west."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 30 May 07 - 01:14 AM

Here it is from the al-qaeda training manual:

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate To those champions who avowed the truth day and night And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases.

The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates Platonic ideals, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.

Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they [always] have been by pen and gun by word and bullet by tongue and teeth..."

After the fall of our orthodox caliphates on March 3, 1924 and after expelling the colonialists, our Islamic nation was afflicted with apostate rulers who took over in the Moslem nation. These .rulers turned out to be more infidel and criminal than the colonialists themselves. Moslems have endured all kinds of harm, oppression, and torture at their hands.

Those apostate rulers threw thousands of the Haraka Al-Islamyia (IslamicMovement) youth in gloomy jails and detention centers that were equipped with the most modern torture devices and [manned with] experts in oppression and torture. Those youth had refused to move in the rulers' orbit, obscure matters to the youth, and oppose the idea of rebelling against the rulers. But they [the rulers] did not stop there; they started to fragment the essence of the Islamic nation by trying to eradicate its Moslem identity. Thus, they started spreading godless and atheistic views among the youth. We found some that claimed that socialism was from Islam, democracy was the [religious] council, and the prophet-God bless and keep him-propagandized.

Colonialism and its followers, the apostate rulers, then started to openly erect crusader centers, societies, and organizations like Masonic Lodges, Lions and Rotary clubs, and foreign schools. They aimed at producing a wasted generation that pursued everything that is western and produced rulers, ministers, leaders, physicians, engineers, businessmen, politicians, journalists, and information specialists....."

Unbelief is still the same. It pushed Abou Jahl- may Allah curse him-and Kureish's valiant infidels to battle the prophet God bless and keep him and to torture his companions may Allah's grace be on them.
It is the same unbelief that drove Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi, Hafez Assad, Saleh, Fahed -Allah's curse be upon the non-believing leaders and all the apostate Arab rulers to torture, kill, imprison, and torment Moslems. These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it.
The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun. ..."

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/manualpart1_1.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 29 May 07 - 11:58 AM

Sorry, you have expanded beyond their original self-professed origins to include the propaganda you so eagerly devour.

Al-Quaeda was formed to protect muslim countries from "outside invaders". There were some members who also thought that Al-Quaeda should try to overthrow non-islamist governments in muslim countries. There was no original intent to attack the US or the west in the US or the west.

The US only became a target when thousands of US service people were stationed, during Desert Storm, at an airbase that Bin Laden thought was too close to Mecca. At the time, Bin Laden wanted to use Al-Quaeda as the base (literal tranlsation BTW) of an all-muslim force to drive Hussein from Kuwait.

So, the history of Al-Quaeda does not support your propaganda version. They were enemies of Hussein. They were not enemies of the US until we stationed infidel soldiers too close to their holiest site. The soldiers are now gone. That base is now closed. We got rid of Hussein for them. We conveniently ship infidels to Iraq for Al-Quaeda live-target training. They have been given everything they want.

Shall we "Stay The Course"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 27 May 07 - 03:43 PM

Songs for pigs:

Who's afraid of the big bad wolf
Big bad wolf, big bad wolf?
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?
Tra la la la la

Long ago there were three pigs
Little handsome piggy-wigs
For the big, bad very big very bad wolf
They didn't give three figs

Number one was very gay
And he built his house of hay
With a hey hey toot
He blew on his flute
And he played around all day

Number two was fond of jigs
And so he built his house with twigs
Heigh diddle-diddle
He played on his fiddle
And danced with lady pigs

Number three said "Nix on tricks
I will built my house with bricks"
He had no chance
To sing and dance
'Cause work and play don't mix

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 27 May 07 - 03:40 PM

Al-Qaeda's was formed to eliminate foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradication "infidels" (that includes you), elimination of Israel, and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate, Islamic government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world.

World domination of Muslim fundamentalisim.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:18 AM

Why was Al Qaeda originally formed? There is one specific, self-professed reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 26 May 07 - 12:08 AM

Dianavan:

What interest did al-Qaeda have in Afghanistan? The US left out of there after they helped them drive out the Russians.

al-Qaeda trying to establish a base elsewhere.

al-Qaeda is in Lebanon stirring up shit there. Is that because the US military is there?

Who should pull out of Lebanon so al-Qeada would loose interest and go home? Where would al-Qaeda go home to?

Why is al-Qaeda in Somalia? Morroco? Algeria? Indonesia? Phillipines? India?

You have answered nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 May 07 - 02:58 PM

Dickey - I can't be bullied, and even if I could, and wasted time arguing around in circles with you, you would still be proven wrong by history. So why should anyone listen to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 May 07 - 01:25 PM

You answered your own question, Dickey. The U.S. cannot invade countries just because of an al Qaeda presence. The U.S. should not subject the Iraqi people to their war on terrorism. If they want to fight terrorism, they will have to destroy the training camps. Why isn't the U.S. concentrating their effort on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Oh, I get it. There is no war on terrorism. Its just an excuse to create a new world order.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 May 07 - 09:26 AM

Why is al-Qaeda in Somalia? Morroco? Algeria? Indonesia? Phillipines? India?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 May 07 - 09:13 AM

What interest did al-Qaeda have in Afghanistan? The US left out of there after they helped them drive out the Russians.

al-Qaeda trying to establish a base elsewhere.

al-Qaeda is in Lebanon stirring up shit there. Is that because the US military is there?

Who should pull out of Lebanon so al-Qeada would loose interest and go home? Where would al-Qaeda go home to?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 25 May 07 - 02:12 AM

Dickey - Al qaeda would have no interest in Iraq if the U.S. would leave. Iraq is being used as a battleground for a conflict between the U.S. and al Qaeda. There would be no reason for al Qaeda to overthrow the Iraqi government. The U.S. is just making matters worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 24 May 07 - 11:57 PM

"Has it ever ocurred to you that Iraq may be able to sustain the democratically elected majority Shiite government with the help of Iran?"

Not with al-Qaeda in the picture.

Does Lebanon sustain a democratically elected majority government with the help of the Hezbollah proxy of Iran?

Where are your predictions? I gave mine. TIA has ducked hers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:58 PM

So Dickey - You seem to think that if the U.S. pulls out, it will be an all out war between Sunni and Shia or that Iraq will become a launch pad for al Qaeda. Which is it?

Has it ever ocurred to you that Iraq may be able to sustain the democratically elected majority Shiite government with the help of Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:17 AM

So sorry. gotta run. Teaching a pig to sing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 24 May 07 - 09:55 AM

"You seem to think that chaos would occur if the U.S. pulled out."

Someone else claimed that. I gave a more detailed description of what I "think" would happen but others will not say what they think other than one word answers.

"We predicted this shit the Friday before the game" Go ahead and cut loose with some more predictions.

Tia:

You have expended a lot of much time trying to say I did not do my home work when in fact you did not do what you said you did.

If you are so busy, why not take a short cut and cut and past what you claim you gave a link to rather than spend all this time saying it is my fault?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:14 PM

Thank you dianavan. That was my point months ago (the point that Dickey claims He never heard...and in fairness, he probably didn't). You just said it far more clearly in far fewer words. It still won't sink into those who need it (and say they wanted it). But kudos and thanks anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 May 07 - 04:24 PM

You seem to think that chaos would occur if the U.S. pulled out. What do you think is occurring presently? What difference does it make if its chaos caused by the U.S. invasion or chaos created by Muslims? You see, Dickie, either way, there will be chaos.

On the other hand, the chaos that might occur after the U.S. leaves will probably be of a much shorter duration.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 May 07 - 03:00 PM

A) I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
B) Takes far less time to blow you off than do your homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 23 May 07 - 11:35 AM

If you are so busy, why do you take the time to tell me you are too busy. Why do you take any time at all to post here?

You gave no explanation of what would happen if the US pulls out of Iraq other than "chaos"

Your description of what was at the link did not say anything about the aftermath:

January GQ has a fascinating look at what was going on inside the US Government in the run-up to the Iraq invasion… from a Republican (Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war-authorizing resolution, and supported the invasion until recently.

Note in particular his comments on:

the wording of the resolution as it was sent to Congress by the Bush Administration- asking for authorization to go to war *anywhere in the Middle East*!!!!! (hmmmm Iran, Syria??)

the honesty of Bush's pre-war WMD claims

(both are on page 3)."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 07 - 03:55 PM

More important things to do than duplicate for you...

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:50 PM

Tia:

Is this what you are refering to Tia?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA - PM
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:07 AM

I had already posted the link when you told me it was a non-existent site.

First on 1/25/07 at 11:45 not as clicky, then again at 1/25/07 11:46 as clicky.

It has been there all along my good fella.

---

I read through 7 pages and I didn't see anything about waht happens if the US pulls out now. It was a wild goose chase.

Please cut and paste it or put it in your own words (as opposed to word).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:26 AM

I'll tell you Ron, I don't know why in the hell anybody takes that type of job. Nobody can make them all happy.

But when the troops first rolled in, the Iraqis greeted them asked "you are not going to leave us are you?" and the answer was no.

The ideal thing would be to whack it up into three states but the Sunnis would not agree to that because they would be getting the shit end of the stick.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 May 07 - 10:14 PM

"I agree with you in most respects but I can't get anybody to predict with any detail of what will happen afer the US pulls out of Iraq."

Bullshit.

I gave you a one word answer - chaos.

You bitched so I gave you a nice long one.

Go google it up and re-read.

And I'll never do it again, because all you ever give is simple (simplistic) answers, and then claim they are complete. "A stable government". Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 07 - 09:01 PM

One irony of the situation is that Maliki didn't really want the job--he had to be persuaded to take it. I bet he curses that day.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 May 07 - 11:20 AM

Dear Ron:

I have not asserted that Mr Maliki has done anything to solve any issues. Nor have I asserted that the issues you have raised are not crucial.

I don't think Maliki had done a particularly good job but he was elected to the job.

I agree with you in most respects but I can't get anybody to predict with any detail of what will happen afer the US pulls out of Iraq.

I heard that they "will sort it out" but that does not provide much information. If you throw two pit bulls into a pit, they will sort it out too.

Personally I am looking forward to the day that the US can leave. The sooner the better. I can hardly wait. I would even welcome having the Iraqis tell the US to leave. I am definately not in favor of staying there forever.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:42 AM

Dickey--


"Assertion?" Is that a big word for you?

Exactly why are the issues I have raised not crucial in determining Iraq's future? And what concrete steps--not just talk-- has Maliki taken to solve them?


Fair warning: I will not let you go until you answer directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:37 AM

"You were going to tell us about concrete steps"

This is your false assertion (look it up)that you amuse yourself with.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:23 AM

But don't worry, Dickey. You're still sporadically (look it up) amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 07 - 11:22 AM

Dickey--

Still having problems sticking to the topic?--a common Bushite failing. You were going to tell us about concrete steps--not just talk--the Maliki government has taken to reassure Sunnis on the issues of trusting the police and oil revenue distribution.

If you don't think these are crucial, you need to do more reading--unsurprisingly.

Still waiting patiently.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 11:57 PM

"a war between the terrorists and the U.S."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So all of the reports about the Sunnis and Shia attacking each other are wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 17 May 07 - 08:41 AM

It could be al Qaeda or Hezbollah. Maybe both.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:34 AM

"certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries –countries in Europe, North America ..."

Who do you think created this nightmare, Dickie?

I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 11:20 PM

Ron:

If they are so weak and meaningless, why do you feel compelled to disprove them? Why would a superior person like you waste your time?

Anybody with ultimate intelligence like your self must have many meaningful things to do besides trying to dispell things that you consider totally worthless.

Could it be that you are the type of person that must reign supreme?

You must have everyone agree with you or you barrage them with personal insults as some sort of punishment? I heard that that is symptom of insecurity.

Sorry about your delicate bruised ego but:

Iraq a terrorist Disneyland if US goes
Reuters | Wednesday, 15 May 2007

LONDON: A US troop pullout from Iraq would leave the country as a potent launch pad for international terrorism and Washington would be forced to go back in within a couple of years, a leading al Qaeda expert said.

Rohan Gunaratna told a security conference at Lloyd's of London insurance market that Iraq, like Afghanistan in the 1990s, would become a "terrorist Disneyland" where al Qaeda could build up its strength unchallenged.

If US, British and other coalition troops withdrew from Iraq in the next year, he said, "certainly the scale of attacks that would be mounted inside Iraq, and using Iraq as a launching pad to strike other Western countries – countries in Europe, North America – would become such that after two or three years, the US forces will have to go back to Iraq"...

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1560349920070515

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:50 PM

Yes, Dickey, your arguments are amusingly weak. But don't put too high a number on your entertainment value. Remember, I said "fitfully amusing". Perhaps you need to make another trip to the dictionary.

But I do look for humor anywhere I can find it. It's a good approach to life--you might want to try it.



Perhaps you can take some time off from your busy schedule-- of flooding Mudcat with meaningless articles-- to actually find some evidence of follow-through by Maliki on the issues of purging the police of militias and assuring that the Sunnis get more oil income than will accrue to just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq.

If these issues seem familiar, perhaps it's because I've been hammering away at them for over a year--yet somehow you, Teribus, and the other giant intellects who comprise the Bushite cheering section of Mudcat still don't seem to understand that these issues are the crux of any Iraq settlement. No spin involved--so sorry if you don't like it. Facts can be unpleasant things to those who subscribe, as Bush supporters do, to "ignorance is bliss".

And don't bother with your pious pronouncements about how these issues are being discussed. Talk is cheap. It would be nice to see some action.

Your every posting makes it clearer that my analysis of 15 May 2007 11:23 PM is accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 16 May 07 - 06:54 PM

"There is no doubt that Iraqis themselves have different views on the foreign military presence in their country. The world community understands that the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq cannot be extended forever. But how to prevent a pullout from turning into flight, which would unleash terror in Iraq?..."

For one thing, the U.S. could start by allowing diplomatic relations between Iran and Iraq to proceed without interference.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 16 May 07 - 09:17 AM

I am glad Ron is so easily amused.

Something else for him to lamely try to discredit and spin his way:

Outside View: Iraqi Compromise Plan
By Marianna Belenkaya May 16, 2007

"...Indicative in this respect is an article by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari published by The Washington Post on May 4. The title of the article addressed to the world community, above all the Americans and the Brits, speaks for itself: "Don't Abandon Us." The gist of the article is that despite the difficult situation, life in Iraq is turning back to normal in all spheres -- from security to the economy.

The minister admits that "small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in downward spiral" and that some claim that the war "is all but lost." But he goes on to say that the situation is improving, albeit slowly, and appeals to the world to remain engaged in Iraq so as to help it preserve its achievements.

By asking the world not to "abandon" Iraq, Zebari primarily objects to a multinational troop withdrawal, although he also seeks economic and political support for Iraq by the West and neighboring countries.

It is difficult to say whether Zebari has painted a true picture of Iraqi achievements. Only the Iraqis themselves can judge it. Their testimonies in the world media do not sound so optimistic. But the foreign minister is right -- Iraq needs international support. A foreign troop withdrawal should match the interests of the Iraqi people and enhance world security. It should not be tailored to suit British or American voters or promote political ambitions.

There is no doubt that Iraqis themselves have different views on the foreign military presence in their country. The world community understands that the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq cannot be extended forever. But how to prevent a pullout from turning into flight, which would unleash terror in Iraq?..."

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/security/article_21281015.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:53 PM

"your goal is to convince us"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:52 PM

Dickey--


I read the Max Boot column--and before you, I suspect--since I read the WSJ every day but Sunday. Sorry, a Max Boot column in the WSJ is not what is called a reliable source--at least not in circles of thinking individuals--though perhaps in yours.

And we'll see what Mr. Brown actually does when he takes over. Perhaps it has escaped your eagle eye that he is not yet PM.

Your thrashing around is fitfully amusing--but I'm afraid, not very convincing--except if your goal is convince us that my analysis of your behavior is accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:44 PM

Surging Ahead in Iraq
By MAX BOOT WSJ May 15, 2007

"...The reality is that Iraq has been experiencing a fairly low-grade civil war until now -- one that has been contained by the presence of U.S. troops. While the troop surge in Baghdad hasn't yet decreased the overall level of violence -- suicide bombings, which are notoriously difficult to stop, remain undiminished -- the presence of more Iraqi and American troops on the streets has managed to reduce sectarian murders by two-thirds since January. Sunni fanatics are still able to set off their car bombs, but Shiite fanatics are not able to respond in kind by torturing to death 100 Sunnis a night. In other words, the surge is containing the results of the suicide bombings, slowing the cycle of violence that last year was leading Iraq to the brink of the abyss.

If U.S. troops were to pull out anytime in the foreseeable future, the probable result would not be (as so many advocates of withdrawal claim) that Iraqis would "get their act together" and take care of their problems themselves. The far more likely consequence would be an all-out civil war. Not only would this be a humanitarian tragedy for which the U.S. would bear indirect responsibility, but it would also be a catastrophe for American interests in the region. If we are seen as the losers in Iraq, al Qaeda would be seen as the winner. The perception of American weakness fed by a pullout would lead to increased terrorism against the U.S. and our allies, just as occurred following our withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 and from Beirut in 1983...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:35 PM

It tells you right in that article Ron.

Here is another one you can whine about:

Brown rejects immediate pullout from Iraq

LONDON: Britain's leader-in-waiting Gordon Brown rejected an immediate pullout of the country's troops from Iraq on Sunday as he defended himself against two left-wingers who want to challenge him for the leadership.

Brown clashed on foreign and domestic policy with left-wing lawmakers Michael Meacher and John McDonnell during a lively 80-minute debate before an audience in London. Meacher, 67, and McDonnell, 55, the only other politicians so far to put their names forward, will decide on Monday which has the best chance of winning the support of 45 lawmakers required to get on the ballot. The other will drop out.

Brown, 56, stuck closely to the reformist "New Labour" policies that brought Blair three election victories, portraying his rivals as seeking to return to old Labour tax-and-spend policies that proved its downfall in the 1980s.

British media has been buzzing with talk that Brown may speed up withdrawal of British troops from Iraq, the conflict that many Britons regard as the biggest stain on Blair's legacy.

But Brown defended the presence of British troops in Iraq and ruled out any immediate withdrawal. British troop numbers in Iraq had fallen substantially but Britain had obligations to the Iraqi people, he said.

"Whatever the divisions have been it would be the wrong time now to just say: 'Send troops home now'," he said. "We're moving to a new stage in Iraq," he said, because Iraq had taken over security in three of the four provinces that Britain took charge of after the 2003 US-led invasion.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C05%5C15%5Cstory_15-5-2007_pg4_7

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:23 PM

Dickey--

So Japan is keeping its troops in Iraq. And how many troops are we talking about? Pardon me for not jumping up and down in delight--even though you evidently feel this is news of burning importance.

Gee, I wonder why we get the feeling that you are desperately grasping at straws in a pathetic attempt to convince yourself that the Iraq war is going just fine. I'm sure there must be another reason for your behavior--though it's unclear what it might be.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:04 AM

Japan extends support for U.S. in Iraq war
15 May 2007 Reuters

TOKYO, May 15 (Reuters) - Japan's parliament on Tuesday passed a bill extending air force support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq for another two years, despite opposition calls for the troops to be brought home...."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T284214.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:47 PM

Please don't go, Haditha mayor tells U.S. Marines

Tony Perry Los Angeles Times May 13, 2007

HADITHA, Iraq -- The weather was desert hot. But the Pepsi was nicely cold. After acting the role of the gracious host, the mayor here made his point.

"The people of Germany and Japan would not have made progress without the Americans," Mayor Abdul Hakim M. Rasheed told the U.S. Marine officers who recently came to his heavily guarded home. "The people of Iraq deserve the same."

The Marines, including three generals, assured Rasheed that they had no plans to abandon him and his city. Don't be distracted by the political debate in Washington, they urged Rasheed, who listened and nodded.

Since 2004, Iraq's western al-Anbar province -- the center of the Sunni-led insurgency -- has been the most dangerous part of the country for U.S. forces. But Marines here have been experiencing a respite in recent weeks. Attacks against Marines and soldiers are at their lowest point in four years...."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003705064_haditha13.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 13 May 07 - 12:44 PM

Iraq MPs gather votes to force U.S. withdrawal
Tehran Times May 13, 2007

BAGHDAD (AFP) -- Iraqi MPs are gathering votes to force their government to set a deadline for U.S. forces to withdraw from the country and think they have a majority, a leading Shiite politician said on Friday.

Baha al-Aaraji, a supporter of radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told AFP that 144 members of the 275-seat national assembly had signed a draft law that would set a departure timetable for U.S. troops.

However, other legislators said the bill would probably be watered down before becoming a non-binding petition, and that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki would martial enough support to renew the U.S. mandate next month.

"The signatures have been submitted to the speaker of parliament and, after that, a committee chaired by me was formed," Aaraji said.

Aaraji's committee has asked Iraq's defense, interior and national security ministries to suggest a date by which their forces will be ready to take charge of security operations currently overseen by U.S. forces.

"We've received two answers and now the committee is holding a series of meetings. We could finish within the next few days, and then the law will be discussed and voted on," Aaraji said.

"Many people support it. I signed it myself," said Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman, while insisting that most members regard the vote as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require a withdrawal.

Othman said Sadr's supporters were focusing too hard on the withdrawal side of the bill while others, despite supporting the draft, mainly sought a role for the Baghdad parliament in making the eventual decision.

"They want to build Iraqi forces to take over when the Americans withdraw while they are withdrawing American forces. The two processes go hand in hand," he said, while confirming his support for a timetable.

"A majority of parliamentarians want this objective timetable agreed upon between Iraqis and Americans," he said.

The moves in Iraq's parliament mirror those in Washington, where a Democrat-controlled Congress has attempted to force President George W. Bush to set a date to begin bringing home the 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

But so far both Bush and Maliki have argued that withdrawal must depend on the security conditions, and that setting an arbitrary deadline would be dangerous.

Bush has already vetoed one U.S. bill tying military funding to a timetable and Maliki could refuse to endorse any law passed by his parliament.

Opinion polls show that a majority of both American and Iraqi voters favor a U.S. troop pull-out, although there must be some caution over the accuracy of surveys conducted amid the chaos in Iraq.

The U.S. commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has promised to report back to Washington in September on whether his strategy of flooding an extra 28,000 troops into the Baghdad region is quelling the violence.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=5/13/2007&Cat=4&Num=003

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 May 07 - 06:20 AM

WSJ 11 May 2007: "In Baghdad, a majority of lawmakers backed a proposal by Shiite militia chieftain Sadr's bloc calling for freezing the US troop buildup and a timetable for withdrawal."


Dickey----This is very likely far more significant than all your rosy scenario contributions put together.

If the majority of the Iraqi legislature want a freeze on US forces--and a timetable on withdrawal, what, pray tell, will Bush do about that?

Sounds like it's not the US Congress which is being "defeatist".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 12 May 07 - 12:32 AM

Two years pooshmeers.

we were told 6 days, six weeks i dont think six months
then we were told out by july
then we were told no time tables
then we hear that people are talking in secret about minimum 15 years
if you believe this bullshit, i am sorry for you

wanna buy some land?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 11 May 07 - 11:24 PM

Talabani: Iraq still needs coalition forces

US and British troops need to stay in Iraq for another one to two years, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, said today.

The statement came as the Bush administration faced increasing pressure to withdraw its presence in the country.

"I think in one or two years we will be able to recruit our own army forces and say goodbye to our friends," Mr Talabani told students during a visit to Cambridge University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2077474,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 May 07 - 06:45 PM

Congratulations, Dickey you've finally figured out what a reliable source is--Reuters definitely fits. Now if you can restrict yourself to Reuters, UPI, AP--sorry--your favorite right-wing blogs don't fit. And I'm afraid I can't trust you to cite the Wall St Journal--you'd have to know the difference between editorials and reporting--something which seems to be beyond the ken of Bushites.

Of course the article you cite--another of your patented Pollyanna reports--sounds just wonderful.

Except that it's a long road to stability in Iraq--and for every one of your pieces of happy happy news, I could cite a pile of articles on the other side.

And patience, including on the part of Republican senators and Congressmen, is running out.

It must make you happy to see your own postings--since I'm afraid your contributions do nothing else. You convince nobody.


To return to Iraq--particularly of interest, as I've said before, will be whether "Kurdistan" is willing to share its oil income with the rest of "Iraq". And if not, what will stop the Shiites from pushing for a similar arrangement in the south of "Iraq"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 10 May 07 - 10:22 AM

Iraq Sunni VP "comforted" by recent govt talks

"BAGHDAD, May 10 (Reuters) - Iraq's Sunni vice president is "comforted" by recent meetings with political leaders aimed at advancing national reconciliation and addressing minority Sunni Arab concerns, his office said on Thursday.

Tareq al-Hashemi and other senior figures from Iraq's largest Sunni Arab bloc in parliament had warned they might quit the government of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki if their grievances were ignored.

Such a move would be disastrous for the Shi'ite-led government, both for defusing the Sunni Arab insurgency but also in trying to represent Iraq's main sects and ethnic groups.

But a surprise visit by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to Iraq appears to have helped soften the Sunni Arab stance.

On Wednesday, Cheney held roundtable talks with Hashemi, Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.

"Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi was comforted by the results of recent meetings with political officials that witnessed intense political movement," a statement from his office said without elaborating on what that movement was.

"(Hashemi) described it as a step in the right direction, even though there is still a long way to go to resolve all the diffences.""

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA034309.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 May 07 - 11:04 PM

So Bourojerdi says the Bush administration has decided to resume relations with Iran.

That's nice.

Now what exactly does that mean?

And what exactly does the Bush administration say about this? Funny there's been no official declaration by said administration stating this--this would be huge news. And why do you suppose the Bush regime is flying under the radar on this?

I wonder if that statement is just diplomatic verbiage--neither full of sound and fury, nor signifying too awful much.

But that can't be. Dickey posted it, so it must be significant.   Because everything he notes is dripping with importance--otherwise he wouldn't post it. How could anybody doubt it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 08 May 07 - 12:13 AM

At Sharm el-Sheikh, US focused on improving situation in Iraq
Tehran, May 6, IRNA

Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Alaeddin Boroujerdi said on Sunday that during the international conference on Iraq, the US had focused on drawing support from the Europeans to help improve situation in Iraq.

He told reporters that support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maleki's government, giving momentum to the international campaign against terrorism were the achievements of the conference in Egypt on May 3-4.

He said that the conference threw weight behind those responsible for Iraqi security and strengthening Iraqi police and security forces.

Boroujerdi said that the final statement of the conference and the stance declared in it are in line with Iran's policies.

Concerning the statement of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both before and after the conference, he said that President George W.

Bush's Administration has decided to resume relations with Iran.

"The US is expected to present a formal request for resumption of relations. However, there was no opportunity for such talks in Sharm el-Sheikh."
He said that Iran seeks reduction of security shortfalls and preventing bloodbath in Iraq with great importance.

He recalled recent visit to Baghdad of Secretary of Iranian Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani and said that besides discussing political and security issues with Iraqi officials, Larijani prepared the ground for the families of the Iranian diplomats detained in Iraq to meet them.

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-234/0705060546164937.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:42 PM

Were we not promised that all diplomatic efforts would be exhausted BEFORE any invasion of Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 10:26 PM

Iraq: US, Iran may Talk Soon

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Iraq's foreign minister said Sunday that he expects to soon see "substantive discussions" among US, Iranian and Iraqi diplomats on improving security and stability in his country. But it was unclear if the United States and Iran had agreed to a meeting.

"...Iran is close to the Shiite and Kurdish parties that dominate the US-backed Iraqi government. But tensions have been rising between Iran and the United States, which accuses Tehran of backing violence and secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies both allegations vehemently, stressing that this is the United States' Iraq policy which has stirred violence and fomented unrests in the war-torn country..

Zebari said Iraq took the initiative last year to act as the "interlocutor" between Tehran and Washington because "we have excellent relations with the Americans and with Iranians also."

In the last three or four years, he said, Iraq and its neighbors have held about 10 meetings.

"We don't want our country to be a battleground," Zebari said, so "we wanted to bring together" all the major international players who could make a difference.

The Iranians were initially reluctant to attend Friday's ministerial, but Zebari said when he went to Tehran and met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials he told them, "this is a win-win conference for everybody" and it was in their interest to attend.

"I win, you win, the United States wins, nobody is going to lose anything - not face, not position, whatever," he said.

Zebari said he also told Ahmadinejad that "ironically your position with the United States is very similar on Iraq - support for the government, the legitimacy, majority rule, this is common."

As for the US decision to meet the Iranians, Zebari said, "it was a major decision by the US government, and it was very courageous, and I believe wise ... because whether we want it or not the United States is a key player, the Iraqi government is a player - it's our country, Iran is a player. So we must be realistic."..."

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8602130141

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

He has.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 May 07 - 12:56 AM

I thought you said he was so stupid he already fell into a trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 02:31 PM

No, but I am skeptical about the integrity of Syria. I think Bush is stupid enough to fall into a very big trap.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 May 07 - 10:08 AM

Dianavan: Were you criticizing the administration for not talking to Syria?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 May 07 - 04:31 AM

So what is your opinion of the new friendship between the U.S. and Syria?

I wouldn't trust Syria for one minute. They continue to provide assistance, money and training to Hamas, Hizbullah, and other terrorist groups. They are also increasing their weapons supply and building their military along the Israeli border. In fact, its the biggest build-up since 1973.

Politics makes strange bedfellows and oil provides the lubrication.

I can only hope that Israel sounds the alarm and people (regardless of religion) stand together to oppose American interference in the politics of the Middle East. I have a feeling that the U.S. is once again using the divide and conquer strategy. Wouldn't it be great if the Semitic people stood together and told the U.S. to go home and mind their own business?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 03:13 PM

Syria's Sunni leader supports Mecca call for peace in Iraq
Damascus - Syria's Sunni leader Sheik Salah El-Deen Kiftaroof on Saturday said he 'strongly' supported an agreement between Iraqi Sunni and Shiite religious figures rejecting sectarian violence and calling for peace between different religious sects in Iraq reached in Mecca.

'We at the Compound of Sheik Ahmad Kiftaro, religious leaders and employees in the field of Islamic studies, strongly support what was contained in this document and call upon our brothers in Iraq in all sects and ethnicities to commit themselves to it,' Sheikh Salah El- Deen Kiftaro, head of the compound, said in a statement Saturday.

The Mecca meeting was sponsored by a Saudi-based organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and attended by the group's Turkish Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

Participants represented a broad cross section of Iraq's shattered society, including senior Shiite and Sunni religious leaders, the former leader of Iraq's largest Sunni party and a senior official from the largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

A ten-point communique issued at the end of the two-day meeting condemns kidnappings and incitement of the people, attacks on mosques and shrines, and attempts to clear neighbourhoods of members of other sects.

It also demands the release of Iraqis detained without charge.

Kiftaro reiterated in the statement that 'it is not allowed to kill a Muslim under any pretext, explanation or suspicion' and called upon all religious leaders in Iraq to declare their support for the agreement and make their followers commit to it.


http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1213205.php/Syrias_Sunni_leader_supports_Mecca_call_for_peace_in_Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 05 May 07 - 03:00 PM

Was Israel at the meeting? If not, why not.

...and why is the U.S. sucking up to Syria? Is it because they are Sunni?

I'm beginning to believe that the U.S. is playing a very dangerous game of backing Sunnis. Is Bush still attempting to create a Sunni/U.S. alliance?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 05 May 07 - 02:32 PM

A very optimistic report by Radio Free Europe, Dickey.

I wonder why they left out the fact that Kuwait, Russia and China have not offerred any debt relief.

Sometimes you have to listen carefully to what is left unsaid.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 05 May 07 - 12:27 PM

Iraq Conference Declared A Success

Egypt -- The conference center where preparations are underway for the International Compact with Iraq Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, 02 May 2007. The conference drew top officials from Iraq's neighbors and beyond

A two-day conference on Iraq's future was declared a success, although a much-anticipated meeting of top U.S. and Iranian officials never materialized.

"I'm very much encouraged by the successful outcome of the two-day meeting on Iraq," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in closing the conference. "The first meeting on the International Compact with Iraq was a great success."

Ban noted that many participants at the event, held at Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, promised to forgive much of Iraq's prewar debt, estimated at between $50 billion and $60 billion.

Participants at the conference included foreign ministers from Iraq's neighbors -- including Iran and Syria -- as well as representatives of the G8, the United Nations, and the European Union. Also attending was U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The ministers worked on a five-year plan -- called the International Compact with Iraq, or ICI -- which included not only financial help but political support to help stabilize the country, which is now beset by an insurgency and sectarian fighting.
The ministers worked on a five-year plan that includes financial and political support to help stabilize Iraq.

But several delegations said the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had to earn such support by acting more decisively to end the country's civil strife. Particularly outspoken was Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, who demanded that al-Maliki disarm Iraq's warring militias.

Al-Maliki countered that it was up to neighboring states to help stop the inflow of foreign fighters and weapons into his country.

"Now after the fall of the dictatorship [of Saddam Hussein], we will not allow terrorist organizations to [find] shelter in the Iraqi territories," al-Maliki said. "And this is what urges us to demand that neighboring countries stop the infiltration of terrorist groups inside Iraq, and prevent them from getting any funds and political and media support -- as has been agreed at [all] the meetings of the Arab interior ministers, and the conferences of the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighbors."

Syria-U.S. Meeting

The United States says weapons and fighters have entered Iraq from both Iran and Syria. However, on May 3 in Baghdad, the U.S. military said Syria seemed to be gaining better control over its border. Shortly after that announcement, Rice held her meeting with Walid al-Muallim, Syria's foreign minister.

Rice said today that she and al-Muallim discussed ways of keeping insurgents from using Syria as a base from which to send weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq. She said she hoped Iran would do the same...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 04 May 07 - 06:40 PM

Confused as always. They are probably giving the body as many high-ranking names as possible. It sounds to me as if they are getting two for the price of one.

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

Iraq Says Insurgent Leader Killed In Baghdad

May 3, 2007 -- Iraqi Deputy Interior Minister Husayn Ali Kamal said today that U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella group of Sunni insurgents linked to Al-Qaeda.

Kamal told Reuters that the Interior Ministry has Abu Umar al-Baghdadi's body, and state television broadcast images purporting to show him.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military says that U.S. forces have killed a senior Al-Qaeda figure in Iraq.

U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell said Muharib Abd al-Latif al-Juburi, described as the "senior minister of information" for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, was killed north of Baghdad on May 1.

Al-Juburi, aka Abu Bakr al-Juburi, was identified by the Islamic State of Iraq as its "public relations minister" in an Internet posting last month. The militant was accused of involvement in the kidnapping and killing of U.S. nationals and other foreigners in Iraq in 2006.

The Islamic State in Iraq today denied that al-Baghdadi had been killed. In a posting on an Islamic website, the group said the person killed was its spokesman, possibly referring to al-Juburi.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry has claimed that Islamic State's "war minister," Abu Ayyub al-Masri, aka Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, was killed north of Baghdad on May 1, but that claim has not been verified.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/05/5FD1B2A8-CFF1-4695-A41A-CCB5E54AC4C9.html

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 May 07 - 11:52 AM

from the Washington Post:

Don't Abandon Us

By Hoshyar Zebari
Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A23

Last weekend a traffic jam several miles long snaked out of the Mansour district in western Baghdad. The delay stemmed not from a car bomb closing the road but from a queue to enter the city's central amusement park. The line became so long some families left their cars and walked to enjoy picnics, fairground rides and soccer, the Iraqi national obsession.

Across the city, restaurants are slowly filling and shops are reopening. The streets are busy. Iraqis are not cowering indoors. The appalling death tolls from suicide attacks are often high because of crowding at markets. These days you are as likely to hear complaints about traffic congestion as about the security situation. Across Baghdad there is a cacophony of sirens from ambulances, firefighters and police providing public services. You cannot even escape the curse of traffic wardens ticketing illegally parked cars.

These small but significant snippets of normality are overshadowed by acts of gross violence, which fuel the opinion of some that Iraq is in a downward spiral. The Iraqi people are indeed suffering tremendous hardships and making grave sacrifices -- but daily life goes on for 7 million Baghdadis struggling to take back their capital and country.

Today, at an international summit on the future of Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, my government will ask the international community to maintain its engagement in our country to help us achieve our goals of security and stability. We recognize that our request conflicts with a plethora of voices decrying the situation in Iraq and those in the British and American publics who seek an expeditious withdrawal from a war they claim is all but lost.

So why should the world remain engaged in Iraq?

There is no denying the difficulties Iraq faces, and no amount of good news can obscure the demons of terrorism and sectarianism that have risen in my country. But there is too much at stake to risk failure, and everything to gain by helping us protect our hard-won democratic achievements and emerge as a stable, self-sustaining country.

We remain determined in spite of our losses. Spectacular attacks may dominate foreign headlines, but they cannot change the reality that Iraq has made steady political, economic and social progress over the past four years. We continue to strengthen our nascent democratic institutions, pursue national reconciliation and expand Iraqi security forces. The Baghdad security plan was conceived to give us breathing space to expedite political and economic development by "securing and holding" neighborhoods across the capital. There is no quick fix, but there have been real results: Winning public confidence has led to a spike in intelligence, a disruption of terrorist networks and the capture of key leaders, as well as the discovery of weapons caches. In Anbar province, Sunni sheikhs and insurgents have turned against al-Qaeda and to the side of Iraqi security forces. This would have been unthinkable even six months ago.

Contrary to popular belief, most government ministries are located outside the Green Zone, and employees drive to work every day despite death threats and attacks on colleagues and families. We government ministers are always at risk of assassination. When a suicide bomber attacked parliament last month, the legislators sat in defiance in an extraordinary session the following day. I am particularly inspired by the commitment of the young diplomats in the Foreign Ministry, a diverse mix of Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Arab and Kurdish men and women who serve their country without subscribing to religious or sectarian divisions.

Iraqis are standing up every day, and we persevere because there is no other option. We will not surrender our country to terrorists. They have failed to cripple the elected government, and they have failed to intimidate us into submission. Iraqis reject their vision of a future whose hallmarks are bloodshed and hatred.

Those calling for withdrawal may think it is the least painful option, but its benefits would be short-lived. The fate of the region and the world is linked with ours. Leaving a broken Iraq in the Middle East would offer international terrorism a haven and ensure a legacy of chaos for future generations. Furthermore, the sacrifices of all the young men and women who stood up here would have been in vain.

Iraqis, for all our determination and courage, cannot succeed alone. We need a healthy and supportive regional environment. We will not allow our country to be a battleground for settling scores in regional and international conflicts that adversely affect stability inside our borders. Only with continued international commitment and deeper engagement from our neighbors can we establish a stable democratic, federal and united Iraq. The world should not abandon us.

The writer is foreign minister of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 May 07 - 10:35 PM

Dickey--

Another rumor. Some prove true. But your source is not impressive.   Again, we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 03 May 07 - 08:56 AM

TV: top leader of al-Qaida in Iraq killed in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, May 3 (Xinhua) -- The top leader of al-Qaida in Iraq organization Abu Umer al-Baghdadi, also known as head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq, was killed in western Baghdad neighborhood, state-run Iraqia television reported on Thursday.

    "Abu Umer al-Baghdadi was killed in Ghazaliah and his body is under control of the Interior Ministry. His body has been identified," Brigadier General Abdul Karim Khalaf, spokesman ofthe Interior Ministry, was quoted as saying.

    Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, spokesman of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, said that he will hold a press conference to discuss recent success against the senior leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Earlier in the day, a source from Salahudin province told Xinhua that another senior leader of al-Qaida was killed in the same area on Wednesday.

    Muharib Muhammad Abdullah, also known as Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi,is the head of al-Qaida media office.

    Al-Iraqi was slaughtered with a knife by militants from the "Islamic Army in Iraq," a Sunni insurgent group, on Wednesday afternoon in Baghdad's western neighborhood of Ghazaliyah, the source added..."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-05/03/content_6055814.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 May 07 - 12:36 AM

Dickey--

As you might gather, it ain't easy.

No question, it should be (Shiite) majority rule in Iraq. But the rights of minorities need to be protected too. Main minority seems to be the Sunnis--Kurds have "Kurdistan", which will soon be taking over Kirkuk--and its oil.

If you don't take Sunni wishes into consideration, you just assure a bottomless supply of Sunni insurgents---as I've told Teribus more than once--(not that it ever sank in.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 May 07 - 02:12 PM

Properly punctuated, the statement shoud have read:

"...let's see it in the original arabic, Asswipe...anything else is phonetic."

Thereby making clear to what (whom) the pejorative "asswipe" refers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 02 May 07 - 10:03 AM

Ron:

How would you satisfy both groups, Sunni and Shia?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 07 - 11:50 PM

Dickey--

Possibly more significant than either of your articles is something I've read today-- that a large Sunni group is growing impatient at the lack of progress toward taking their interests into account--and may soon withdraw from Maliki's cabinet. Al Sadr is already not happy with Maliki. Maliki's government seems to be getting progressively shakier.

We'll see what happens.

But so far it seems that unfortunately you'll have to limit your jubilation to modified rapture.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 07 - 11:43 PM

Al-Masri dead? Scholars bicker. There have been false reports of his death before. Let's see what happens when the smoke clears.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 10:19 PM

Maliki tells US senators pressure not acceptable
Published: Sunday, 29 April, 2007, 08:29 AM Doha Time
BAGHDAD: Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a delegation of visiting US lawmakers yesterday that foreign powers should not try to influence the Iraqi political process.
He also resisted calls for his Shia-led government to rehabilitate former members of ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussain's regime.
Maliki met a group of US congressmen shortly after their chamber voted for a law calling for a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"During his meeting with members of the US Congress headed by Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, Maliki said allowing influence over our affairs to this state or that is a red line that we will not cross,".....

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=146339&version=1&template_id=42&parent_id=18

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:43 AM

Iraq's al-Qa'ida head killed
    * May 01, 2007

THE leader of al-Qai'da in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed today in an internal fight between insurgents north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said. Brigadier-General Abdul Kareem Khalaf told Reuters: "we have definite intelligence reports that al-Masri was killed today".

Another source in the ministry also said Masri had been killed. Khalaf said the battle happened near a bridge in the small town of al-Nibayi, north of Baghdad.... "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 May 07 - 08:38 AM

let's see it in the original arabic asswipe

I also cannot read or understand it, but I would use nicer language to describe it.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 01:27 PM

Dickey--

Maliki's is not an easy job- may well be impossible.

As I've said before, we'll probably never see "Iraq" as before 1990--any more than we'll see Yugoslavia. "Kurdistan" is as good as gone.

But the reason for the situation is not far to seek--it's your boy Bush's tragic stupid war. And don't bother with your tired accusations of sympathy for Saddam. I've said before we should have supported internal Iraqi moves to kill him.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

Ron:

I am sure you could do better but I can't even imagine what it would be like trying to do his job.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 07 - 10:42 AM

Poor Dickey. My heart bleeds for you. But Maliki, as I said, talks a good game--but has no follow-through. That's the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 01:43 PM

I shrank it down to one screen but you seem to have your own set of rules you want to impose.

I have answered your questions and suffered all of your personal insults about the answers over and over again but if you want to satisfy your ego with more bullying tactics, ask away.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 01:16 PM

I checked your link.   Thanks for linking--but that means you need not use bandwidth to post the article. I believe it's the same source as BB's favorite these days. In fact I think this article has already been posted.

My questions are still unanswered.

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

1) Source, please.

2) The operative word is "maybe". We'll see.

It will particularly be interesting to see how Maliki deals with "Kurdistan"s insistence in carrying out oil commerce without regard to Maliki's government--and including Kirkuk.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 28 Apr 07 - 12:55 PM

Maybe Maliki is Doing Something Right
A few months ago, Washington circles saw him as "Tehran's man" in Baghdad. Today, Tehran circles label him "Washington's man" in Baghdad. The man thus targeted is Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki whose coalition government has the unenviable task of keeping the Americans in, when they do not want to stay, and the Iranians out, when they want to come in. Those Americans, including some leaders of the new Democrat majority in Washington, who opposed the liberation of Iraq from the start, or changed their minds about it later, blame Maliki for doing nothing to hasten the departure of US troops. They attack Maliki for not imposing a blanket pardon of Baathists regardless of what they did during four decades of despotic domination. They also take him to task for rejecting federal schemes that could lead to the disintegration of the Iraqi state. Also, they criticize Maliki because he refuses the sharing out Iraq's income form oil as if it were loot among thieves.These American critics want Maliki to throw Iraq to the wolves so that Jack Murtha and Michael Moore can prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was wrong. Maliki's Khomeinist critics in Tehran have their own beef with him.
    To start with, as the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) noted recently, Maliki is "too pro-Arab". Translated into plain language this means that the Khomeinists dislike Maliki because he emphasizes the Iraqi Shiite majority's Arab identity rather than religious affiliation. Last month, Ali Khamenehei the top mullah in the Khomeinist system, attacked Maliki in a round-about way. He recalled that many leaders of new Iraq spent years in Iran as exiles, and implied that it was payback time.
    Maliki, however, has offered no favors to the mullahs. He visited half a dozen capitals in the early stages of his premiership, but pointedly left out Tehran. He also turned out Tehran's offer of hosting a regional conference on Iraq, preferring to hold the exercise first in Baghdad and, later this year, in Cairo. Maliki has also given the green light to a crackdown on Shiite militias and death-squads, serving notice that the war of the sectarians must end.
    Within the next few weeks, Maliki is expected to further anger Tehran by dropping from his Cabinet all the five Sadrist ministers beholden to the mullahs. Tehran has already indicated its displeasure by activating its networks in Iraq to organize last week's demonstrations in Najaf. Despite months of pressure from Tehran, Maliki has also refused to scrap the maritime inspection mission of the coalition forces under a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. (The 15 British sailors captured by Tehran last month were operating within that mission.)
    Tehran wants the mission terminated for two reasons. First, it wants to impose total control on the Shatt al-Arab, a border waterway between Iran and Iraq, thus violating the 1975 Algiers agreement that established the thalweg (the deepest channel in the river) as the frontier between the two neighbors. Exclusive control of the estuary would enable the Islamic Republic to impose its terms for a future continental shelf agreement with both Iraq and Kuwait. In plain language, the Islamic Republic wishes to control access to Iraq's 75-kilometre long coastline on the Gulf, turning the Iraqi ports of Basra, Um-Qasar, Al-Bakr and Fao into strategic hostages.
    If such a scheme were imposed, the Islamic Republic would also control access to the Kuwait islands of Warbah and Bubiyan, designated as new development zones by the Kuwaiti government. The second reason why Tehran wants Maliki to scrap the maritime inspection mission is the mullahs' fear that the UN might, at some point, use the mechanism against the Islamic Republic in the context of the current showdown over the nuclear issue.... ....Worse still, the Maliki government has arrested, or acquiesced in the arrest of, more than a dozen senior IRGC officers, including two generals still held by the Americans in Baghdad. The most important cause of Tehran's anger, however, is Maliki's strategic vision of Iraq's relations with the Western democracies, led by the United States.
    The mullahs want Iraq to become a theatre of historic humiliation for Western democracies, especially the US. They hope to see the Americans and their allies running away, not withdrawing in the context of an agreement with a friendly Iraqi government. They want the credit for chasing away the Americans to go to Tehran and its Iraqi allies, notably Muqtada al-Sadr. Maliki, however, wants the US-led coalition out of Iraq only when new Iraq is capable of defending itself against its enemies, including the Khomeinist regime in Tehran. Beyond that, he wants to maintain a strategic partnership with the Western democracies in the interest of Iraq's economic development and social transformation. Maliki is attacked by both the mullahs and Jack Murtha Democrats in Washington. Both hate him because he is working to prevent their respective dreams from coming true.
    The mullahs dream of that "last helicopter" that flies from the rooftop of the US Embassy in Baghdad, spelling the end of the American hopes of bringing decent government to Iraq.The Murtha Democrats may not want a conclusive American defeat in Iraq, but would like something that looks like one. Only perceived defeat in Iraq would give their party something with which to unite its base and make a bid for the White House next year.
    It may be a coincidence. However, each time Congressman Murtha throws a poisonous arrow at Maliki, he is followed by one of Tehran's mullahs doing the same. Who knows, may be Maliki is doing something right!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

Teribus--

Sorry you're not getting enough sleep. Believe it or not, the world won't stop if you don't answer a post at 6:23 AM. Won't your ego allow to you to sleep? You really could tend to Mudcat later.

And I'm also just crushed to hear that your ego is still so tender as to not be able to admit you're wrong about the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign--recognized by the overwhelming majority of all educated English-speakers--too bad that evidently doesn't include you.

It certainly is telling, that when asked to provide direct quotes for your completely offbase characterizations of what I've said--in every case-- you can find precisely nothing.

Actually, I must congratulate you--as far as Iraq is concerned you are virtually the perfect negative indicator--(wonder if you know what that means). But take my word for it, it's a signal achievement on your behalf.

It's certainly a fortunate thing for the world that you have limited influence, to say the least.   With your policies, Iraq would definitely be in even worse shape than it is now--an amazing feat.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:23 AM

Ron,

regarding your last post - irrelevant waffle.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:40 PM

Teribus--

Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this recently. But I certainly don't want you to feel neglected.

It pains me beyond measure, you can imagine, to have to point out some problems with your logic, reading etc.

Sure is big of you to finally admit that Iraq has no WMD's. But it's a mystery how such a masterful foreign policy analyst as yourself could be quite so gullible as to swallow hook line and sinker the feeble story the Bush regime was peddling.

Sorry, your "FACT"s are pretty transparent meaningless statements. For instance, we will never know if there would have been "subsequent terrorist attacks" on the US if Bush had dedicated all his attention to Osama--and let the UN inspectors continue in Iraq. And you say we should be so grateful to Mr, Bush for protecting us-----by invading Iraq? And of course if there had been another terrorist attack on the US after 9-11, you and the other giant intellects who support Bush would have claimed that proved Bush was right to fear al Qaeda--and right to invade Iraq, since there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

As far as the wonderful accomplishments of Bush's Iraq war--as the #1 Bush cheerleader you might want to check that bleeding heart leftist organ, the Economist--issue of 24 March 2007--especially the article on Iraq 4 years on. For instance: "It is now absurd to expect Iraq to serve as a democratic inspiration--it has done more to inspire jihad".

Not that I expect you to recognize that fact--after all it doesn't fit with your comfortable assumptions about how Western use of force is virtually always right--and certainly was right in the case of the Iraq war. If you protest that this is not your view, I invite you to cite instances of when Western use of force outside Europe since World War II was not justified.

And don't bother with your pathetic transparent falsehood about how opponents of the Iraq war want to surrender to al Qaeda. As I and others have pointed out, many Iraq war opponents, myself included, were totally in favor of attacking Afghanistan and chasing down--and capturing Osama.



I wouldn't want to imply, of course, that you are a Western military fossil who can't grasp anything outside your narrow military experience. Perish the thought.

Though sometimes, it's a bit hard to shake that impression.

For instance the good old "chain of command" business. You lurch crazily from one extreme to the other, desperately trying--without much success, sorry to say-- to squeeze the Iraq situation into the straitjacket of your limited military experience.

First Sadr with his "chain of command" will enforce discipline--and of course you provide absolutely no evidence. But that's how real armies--or gangsters--- behave, and, in your mind, Sadr is either a gangster or the head of an army. Anything outside this is a bit baffling for you.

Now you speculate "Sadr's Mahdi army might be breaking up"--again with no evidence. But this time you attribute this idea to me. Direct quote, please. Thanks so much.

Then you make another wild absurd statement--blubbering about how lack of a chain of command will make Sadr's "army" easier to "dust up"--in your, pardon the language, smugly stupid phrase. Wrong again. To put it in terms you might possibly grasp, it's franchises, not IBM.

Propaganda campaign--you're right, I haven't convinced anybody--since the vast majority of thinking English-speakers didn't need me or anybody else to point out the obvious.

Of course their egos are not riding on denying the obvious.



But probably the most spectacularly obvious misreading you've made is your favorite theme of how the Sunnis had best realize they are not in charge, deserve no consideration, if they don't like the new order they should leave Iraq--etc. ad nauseam.

While I kept trying patiently to instruct you--with little success--you're not the quickest study, it appears--that the #1 issue is the necessity that the Sunnis realize they are not being shut out of power---specifically, I said, more than once: the Sunnis must: 1) be able to trust the police--(still not accomplished) and 2) be guaranteed more oil income than would accrue just to the "Sunni parts" of Iraq--in theory now conceded by Maliki--but, as usual, the devil is in the....

And every time I gently tried to explain the facts to you,, you blustered on about how the Sunnis should just accept the new situation. Sorry, that's not how to deal with an insurgency--you actually have to make it worth their while to not support the rebels. And even though it goes against your cherished dogma--threats and use of force is not always the best way to solve the problem. After all, look what a wonderful success Britain had with your idea circa 1775--1783 in North America. And at the start of that period, virtually no American colonist wanted independence.

Well done, good job.

And if you think I said that Maliki's government would cut off the Sunnis--direct quote please. What I said is that the Maliki government had best not try to cut off the Sunnis--and that--citing that well-known foreign policy sage Shania Twain-- Maliki's words "don't impress me much."

Sorry I'll have to stop trying to instruct you tonight. It is, after all, a job for Sisyphus.

Looking forward to your next missive--hoping that it might have a little more to do with reality.

Well, I can dream.

Speaking of which.

Sweet dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:29 AM

Ron--

Do you ever use your head?

While, a "war on terror" may be by definition endless. That doesn't mean for one second that it shouldn't be fought. So in your opinion Bush was stupid to declare it-----except of course that he now can--point to the following benefits since declaring that "war on terror" in the aftermath of the attacks of 11th September, 2001:
- There have been no subsequent attacks by international terrorist groups on targets within the borders of the USA - FACT;
- There been no subsequent attacks by international terrorist groups on any US Embassy - FACT;
- There have been no subsequent attacks by international terrorist groups on US or any other country's shipping - FACT;
- Libya has renounced its WMD programmes
- There is still unprecedented co-operation between intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, customs officials and financial intelligence units - FACT;
- Introduction and adoption of the IMO's ISPS system - FACT;
- Instances of terrorist attacks in Israel are down - FACT;
- It is now known for certain that Iraq has no WMD and no programmes to develope any such weapons - FACT;
- Of the "Axis of Evil" contenders Iraq is now harmless, North Korea is at the negotiating table and Iran is becoming more and more isolated by the day - FACT.

Whole host of things Ron.

Sunnis--you Ron were the one who stated on many occassions that Maliki's Government would cut them off from any share of Iraq's oil revenues----Didn't happen did it Ron? I on the other hand said that for the game to move forward the Sunni's had to come to realise that their insurgency was going nowhere, and that with the mounting level of sectarian violence that they themselves initiated, they realised that they were playing a game of diminishing returns that eventually they could only lose. The Sunni tribal, civic and religious leaders had to engage in political dialogue, and turn their backs on the insurgency and Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq. That is now beginning to happen Ron.

Propaganda--I refuse to acknowledge the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign because it never existed. You only think it existed because somebody told you it did, certainly by your arguements and attempts to convince others that it did clearly illustrate that you haven't given it much thought. As Dickey puts it you resort to obligatory false statements and personal attacks in an attempt to bludgeon someone else into agreeing with you--Got news for you Ron it won't work.

Chain of command--so you finally realize your attempt to graft the British Navy onto al Sadr's "army" is absurd? That's progress. Of course it is Ron, particularly when that was something I never attempted to do - Go back and check Ron--Another case of you putting words into my mouth, then attempting to take me to task over them. I believe that what I originally said was that disciplinary procedures within a paramilitary organisation tend to be a bit more stringent than QRRN. At least that was my experience with the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland - you very rarely get executed for disobeying orders or stepping out of line in the modern day Royal Navy Ron (Happened quite regularly in the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDF, etc) - Knee-cappings, etc were also few and far between in the Royal Navy as well Ron. I bet Ron, that if Moqtad Al-Sadr told his Mehdi Army to cool it, adopt a low profile and lay low - they bloody well would, if any faction of it didn't, they'd be brought into line by the others in pretty short order.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:54 PM

Ron: You seem to be very familiar with the agony of a tender ego. Your ego forces you to continually assault others in order to survive.

I haven't attempted to graft anything anywhere. That is your obligatory false statements and personal attacks at work again in an attempt to bludgeon someone else into agreeing with you. Ron the crusher cannot allow anyone to disagree with him or he is unhappy.

I suppose you think the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on poverty etc. are stupid because they are endless.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:02 PM

Teribus--

Do you ever use your head?

As has been pointed out, a "war on terror" is by definition endless. That's why Bush was stupid to declare it-----except of course that he now can--and does-- justify any assault on the Constitution, civil rights--or anything else of his choosing--by claiming it's necessary to fight the "war on terror".

Sunnis--as I indicated, it's the rejection of your idea that the Sunnis deserve "no consideration"--which may possibly make negotiations between the Maliki government and other factions a reality. Even that is uncertain--whether these negotiations bear fruit has yet to be seen.

The only thing which is absolutely clear is that your attitude--as in the quote--cited above-- from your collected works-- was the worst possible one--and guaranteed to worsen the civil war.

Propaganda--I understand that you refuse to acknowledge the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign. As I've said before, it must be agony to have such a tender ego.

Chain of command--so you finally realize your attempt to graft the British Navy onto al Sadr's "army" is absurd? That's progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

"I think its amazing how the Shia have manipulated the U.S. into ridding Iraq of Saddam and laying the ground work for a theocracy in Iraq."

But you agree that the vast majority if Shia want Democracy in Iraq.

"Dickey - The graph tells us nothing we do not already know.

The Shia prefer a democracy"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 02:06 PM

"Sadr's Mehdi Army might be breaking up, those under Al-Sistani's influence however are not."

I think this statement is over-simplified. Another error in thinking. Al-Sistani is highly respected religious leader. He does not control a military faction. He is like the pope to Shias.

Part of al-Sadr's army and in fact al-Sadr himself have been reported to have crossed into Iran. I think its wishful thinking to assume that this indicates a permanent split in the Mahdi army.

Al-Sistani and al-Sadr control different realms. They are not necessarily opposed to each other. It is prudent for al-Sadr to lie low at this time. This has been at the request of Maliki. Maliki wants U.S. support ($$$ for reconstruction) and the troops go with the 'surge' package. If anything, the more militant of the Mahdi army are getting out of harms way so that the U.S. can go after their enemy, the militant Sunnis and al-qaeda.

In a year or so the U.S. will be gone, it will be a different situation and al-Sadr and the Mahdi army may or may not be needed in Iraq. They will re-enter the scene to keep the Sunnis (including Allawi)in line if it is necessary. At present, it is prudent to allow the U.S. to do the dirty work. If you think that is some kind of victory for the U.S. and Britain, think again.

I think its amazing how the Shia have manipulated the U.S. into ridding Iraq of Saddam and laying the ground work for a theocracy in Iraq. I hope that Iraq can maintain a more secular form of government but I can't help but admire the strategic thinking of the Iranians.

In fact, the best scenario I can think of is that Arab Sunnis and Arab Shiites will be pushed out of both Iraq and Iran eventually. It would be a great day to see the liberation of Persians and Kurds.

I doubt if that will happen in my lifetime, but I can dream.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 06:49 AM

Let's take a look at the facts Ron


1) Propaganda campaign-- never existed, figment of your imagination, which in over a year of pathetic attempts you have been unable to convince anyone apart from your fellow travellers that it ever existed.

2) Negotiations--Oh Ron the Iraqi Government has got people to negotiate with to draw the insurection to a close. On the other hand the US has got nobody to negotiate with to draw their "war on terror" to a close.


3) Sunnis--Your take on things IIRC was that the predominantly Shia Government of Iraq were going to keep all oil revenues for themselves and starve the Sunni minority of investment capital for reconstruction. Malaki's Government didn't do that, did they? That is why the Sunni's are now willing to talk to the Government, they also have finally figured out that the insurgency is leading them nowhere apart from assued destruction.

4) the "chain of command" of Sadr's "army". I sincerely hope that you are right on this one, it will make them easier to dust up. By the bye Ron, which Shia Leader was it that bolted for Iran again? Al-Sistani or Sadr? Sadr's Mehdi Army might be breaking up, those under Al-Sistani's influence however are not. You were the one who previously claimed that Sistani was entirely without influence didn't you Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 02:49 PM

Yes, there have been in fact Western military fossils in positions of power in Iraq--quite a few. Probably the only thing Bush has done right in Iraq--possibly ever--is to put Gen. Petraeus in charge.   In contrast to giant brains like Teribus, Petraeus knows the strategy in Iraq has to be different. The main question now is if it's too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 01:23 PM

"...a clueless Western military fossil, who can't understand anything unless it fits snugly into the Western military model you know."

Precisely why military strategies in Iraq have been a dismal failure to date.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 11:08 AM

Teribus--


Well, let's take a look at your track record, shall we?


1) Propaganda campaign--never able, in over a year of pathetic attempts, to find even one clear quote to contradict the Bush regime's propaganda campaign, acknowledged by the vast majority of sentient English speakers.

2) Negotiations--while you insisted there were no parties with whom the Maliki government could negotiate, that government is indeed doing so. I expected negotiations would have to wait til the end of the "surge" but in fact they are going on now. You told us nobody could negotiate--since the other parties were lying murdering scum. Wrong.


3) Sunnis--"deserve no consideration". Dead wrong. As Amos has pointed out, one of the few promising developments now in Iraq is negotiations between the Maliki government and Sunnis--including Sunni militants--with an eye to driving al Qaeda--foreign agitators--out of Iraq. Your approach would have driven Sunnis into the arms of al Qaeda. Brilliant.

4) the "chain of command" of Sadr's "army". As I pointed out several months ago, you have mistaken al Sadr's "army" for the Royal Navy. We now see, as I noted earlier, even more armed struggle within this "army"--with more splinter groups.

"Chain of command"? Not likely.

If I didn't know you were a highly respected foreign policy analyst, I might think you were in fact a clueless Western military fossil, who can't understand anything unless it fits snugly into the Western military model you know. Good thing we know that's not so.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 07:34 PM

Nothing cheap about it at all dianavan - these are the people who are attacking you. You have been their enemy for more than twenty years, long before Afghanistan, long before Iraq. The people who placed those children in that car ARE the ones you would have to negotiate with.

Don't flounder around and attempt to divert from the questions being asked by coming out with crap such as:

"Saddam's supporters were and are a nasty lot but that is not to say they are acting on behalf of all Muslims or all Iraqis. All terrorists, do not represent all Muslims."

Forget the rest dianavan - Its the nasty ones you have got to deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:43 PM

Cheap shot, teribus. Nobody wants to see children killed.

Saddam's supporters were and are a nasty lot but that is not to say they are acting on behalf of all Muslims or all Iraqis. All terrorists, do not represent all Muslims. Thats why the invasion of Iraq is so wrong. Why invade Iraq if you after terrorists? There were no terrorists in Iraq until the U.S. created them.

Whenever there are acts of aggression and an occupation by foreign forces, terrorist factions will emerge to fight back. Those children would not have died if it weren't for the U.S. bringing their military might to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:01 PM

Oh! so people who put children into the back of a car containing a bomb, in order to get through a check point then run for it before they detonate the bomb, leaving the children inside are going to compromise on their beliefs and the calling of their faith. Don't think so dianavan, doesn't matter what you offer it will never be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:00 PM

Perhaps Muslims could remove their presence for all non Arab/Muslim lands.

That would be a start. Let them eat oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:59 PM

The rest of it?

That would be part of the compromise on their part.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

So, mister know-it-all-T thinks he can spell al qaeda (let's see it in the original arabic asswipe -- anything else is phonetic), but cannot tell us the specific and well known reason why they turned on the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:32 PM

As for the rest of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM

"US to remove their presence from all muslim lands, but with particular emphasis placed on Arab muslim lands in the middle-east."

Maybe we could start here.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:42 PM

Insurgents top Iraq's daily death toll
BAGHDAD, March 21 (UPI) -- The daily death tally from Iraq Wednesday showed 13 of the 20 reported deaths were insurgents and al-Qaida sympathizers, local and military reports said.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 12:36 PM

Dianavan: "You apply pressure through international diplomacy. If that doesn't work you impose sanctions. If that doesn't work, you deploy a multi-national task force"
All that was done in Iraq.

Latest atrocites byt people that Dianavan thinks can be bargained with:

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy director for regional operations on the Joint Staff, said Tuesday that a vehicle used in the attack was waved through a U.S. military checkpoint because two children were visible in the back seat. He said this was the first reported use of children in a suicide car bombing in Baghdad.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion, (so) we let it move through, they parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back," Barbero told reporters in Washington. "The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AmWdbgsA7JuYFKtLWztsorPMWM0F

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:32 AM

Brilliant from dianavan we get the following, which by and large is roughly how things are supposed to happen in an ideal world - unfortunately the world in reality is far from ideal:

dianavan - 21 Mar 07 - 01:26 AM

1) "You apply pressure through international diplomacy."

In general, yes that is normally what happens.


2) "If that doesn't work you impose sanctions."

Unilaterally - completely ineffective. Through the UN? Well this is where it gets tricky and you run into that "veto" thing. Even when passed, those who originally objected to the imposition of sanctions will conspire with the targeted country to circumvent those sanctions. Classic example Iraq's "Oil for Food". Sanctions did not work against South Africa, Rhodesia, Libya, Serbia, Iraq, the list goes on.

3) "If that doesn't work, you deploy a multi-national task force..."

Now let's see, since its formation how many times has this been done dianavan? I think that you will find that this course of action is extremely rare. Your multi-national task force is tasked with doing what exactly? Even in the most blatant circumstances which scream out from the roof-tops for international intervention (Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Zimbabwe) the UN will always find some way of stepping back to "monitor" the situation from the side-lines. This has happened time and time again, no point in even attempting to deny it.

4) "but you should never be so arrogant as to think you can, "go it alone."

What about a nation's right to self defence dianavan? Do you seriously advocate delegating the exercise of that right to the UN, given its track record? You must be joking.

5) "Somewhere during the diplomatic negotiations you find out what the terrorists are demanding and why."

OK dianavan this is what they want:

- US to remove their presence from all muslim lands, but with particular emphasis placed on Arab muslim lands in the middle-east.

- For the US as a whole to convert to Islam.

- For the US as a whole to adopt Sharia Law as the only law applicable throughout the country.

- For the US to become a subject state as part of a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

6) "Together you work on a solution thats agreeable to all. That doesn't mean that one side gets everything they want. Both sides have to compromise."

OK dianavan, given the above set of demands, what are you going to compromise on? Where do you think that you will find common ground agreeable to all?

7) "I am a great believer in effective problem solving."

No dianavan, you are a great believer in running away, you are a great believer in appeasement, you are a great believer in capitulation.

8) "War doesn't solve anything."

Certainly does in some cases. The situation that the US is in, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan are classic examples of such cases. You have nobody to negotiate with. Your declared enemy in all his various guises is implacable. Your declared enemies demands are totally outrageous and unreasonable. By the bye dianavan although I mention the US in the demands detailed above, they generally apply to all countries, they do after all want a world-wide Islamic Caliphate.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 01:26 AM

You apply pressure through international diplomacy. If that doesn't work you impose sanctions. If that doesn't work, you deploy a multi-national task force but you should never be so arrogant as to think you can, "go it alone."

Somewhere during the diplomatic negotiations you find out what the terrorists are demanding and why. Together you work on a solution thats agreeable to all. That doesn't mean that one side gets everything they want. Both sides have to compromise. I am a great believer in effective problem solving. War doesn't solve anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:47 PM

Dianavan:

What do you do if the government of a nation supports terrorisim?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:32 PM

And 500 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:32 PM

It would be a lot better if all the American troops stayed home within easy reach of their families , wouldnt it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

The alternative is not to declare war on terrorists unless you have the support of the government whose nation you are invading. It is up to each nation to deal with the terrorists in their country as criminals. Don't bother invading because you will lose without popular support. The people of the country will become terrorists in an effort to rid their nation of occupation by a foreign power. In other words, you can never win a war on terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:37 PM

I note Dianavan that you propose no alternatives, you can knock but you are incapable of constructive though. Somewhat like Ron - clueless.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:48 PM

"Promote a culture of war so that our young men will be gainfully employed and off the streets and make big money for the arms dealers and reconstructionists. Create an atmosphere of fear so that the general public will support it."

Iran in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:39 AM

Gee, teribus, if what you say is true, "The "War on Terror" will only ever stop once you have convinced rogue governments that it is "suicide" for them to support international terrorist groups, and once you have convinced the terrorist groups and their supporters that whatever their game, it will not be worth the candle. Takes a long time Ron, but in all cases - its worth it," the U.S. and Britain will be at war forever.

Who's next, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt? In fact, most countries in the world support terrorist groups - Israel, Lebanon, the U.S., etc. Some are more covert, thats all. Seems like a make work project to me.

Promote a culture of war so that our young men will be gainfully employed and off the streets and make big money for the arms dealers and reconstructionists. Create an atmosphere of fear so that the general public will support it. Worth it? To whom? Its not worth it to anyone who's loved one has been killed, wounded or emotionally damaged by war. For what? Fear of a phantom enemy on some distant shore?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:41 AM

A Question from Ron:
"The UK army is leaving Iraq--long before the US. What's your view of that?"

No change in UK Foreign policy by the way Ron. The UK is doing exactly what they said they would do from Day 1.

Why are they in a position to leave?

1) UK Forces after the initial battles were, in general, welcomed by the local population.
2) UK Forces have a far better understanding of what a "Hearts and Minds" policy requires and how to deliver it in a sustained manner.
3) Different "softer" patrolling strategy. Our guys seem a lot more approachable and are more willing to make personal contact with the locals than US Forces seem to be.
4) They were in a position to demonstrate clearly to the local population that they were there to help very early on.
5) Southern part of Iraq is predominantly Shiia. Therefore the UK Forces have never had to counter the Ba'athist insurgents and sectarian violence that the US Forces in the central areas have had to face.
6) When faced with hostile situations UK Forces have shown a great deal more restraint than US Forces in similar situations.
7) All the above have allowed the UK contingent of the MNF to wind down their presence in Iraq dramatically compared to US Forces in the central areas. UK strength in Iraq fell from about 34,000 at the start to below 10,000 very quickly.

I am very pleased that the number of troops is being reduced. I am pleased that they are returning to the UK, I believe that they have done a superb job under extremely difficult circumstances. I do not know what the political agreements were or what the force tasking schedule was but there must be some reason why they are not being redeployed within Iraq to further reinforce and support US Forces in the central areas. Coupled with that, it must be remembered that well over half of Iraq's eighteen provinces are now under full control of the Iraqi Government.

Now Ron about those questions I asked, the ones you seem unable to answer:

Part A: "How do you end the "War on Terror"?"
No answer offered by Ron. Islamic fundamentalists object strongly to the USA for the following reasons:
- Support for Israel as required by UN Charter and UNSC Resolutions and as also required by the bilateral defence treaty between Israel and the USA.
- Providing the Mujihadeen with the expertise and means to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan (Same as the French have never forgiven you for liberating them in 1944).
- That it was a US led coalition that expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, after their offer to Saudi Arabia to do the same job was turned down.

The above reasons Ron are why the Islamic fundamentalist Terrorist groups attack the United States of America - Nothing to do with the Taleban/Afghanistan and 2001 - Nothing to do with the US leading a coalition into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The US has been firmly in the cross-hairs of one particular group since the late 1980's/early 1990's. And Ron it doesn't matter if you get out of Iraq, it doesn't matter if you get out of Afghanistan, they are still going to attack you. By getting out you hand over the initiative to them, at the moment the MNF and ISAF forces along with the national security services of both Iraq and Afghanistan are picking the battles and generally winning them. The "War on Terror" will only ever stop once you have convinced rogue governments that it is "suicide" for them to support international terrorist groups, and once you have convinced the terrorist groups and their supporters that whatever their game, it will not be worth the candle. Takes a long time Ron, but in all cases - its worth it.

Part B: "Who do you negotiate with?"
Here is an example of Ron's english comprehension. When asked three simple questions, split into Parts A, B & C in this post Ron comes back with the following which he sincerely believes is an answer -

"I've told you, more than once, "negotiation" will wait until after the "surge" is over--and most US troops are gone."

That "peace-Monger" Ron, ould son, answers WHEN will you negotiate, it does not answer a single point put to you.

Simple fact of the matter is Ron - There is nobody to negotiate your "Peace" with, there will always be some group that will target you, even more so if you do a deal at present - sort of like paying for protection - which by the way that is what Al-Qaeda and OBL wants you to do initially.

Part C: "What are you prepared to compromise on?"
OK "peace-monger" Ron, this is what your enemies have stated that they want you to do:

- Withdraw from all arab lands, in particular those in the middle-east.

- Convert to Islam, if you don't you have to pay them a sort of "Danegelt" each year so that they leave you alone (History shows that in the long run the Brits found that it didn't work, they ended up being invaded anyway)

- Adopt Sharia Law as the only law that governs your country
- Become part of a re-established world-wide Islamic Caliphate

Now then Ron in order to accommodate those demands in your pursuit of "peace-mongering" what would you be prepared to compromise on? I suppose the only place in the above where you have any room for manoeuvre is on the first point, but it wouldn't matter "Peace-monger" Ron - whatever you offered, it would never quite be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:02 AM

Well, I can reach the keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:44 AM

Dickey - The graph tells us nothing we do not already know.

The Shia prefer a democracy (of course, they are the majority) or an Islamic State.

The Sunni prefer a strong leader (aka Saddam).

How old are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:00 PM

It seems to me that the Majority if Iraqis want a Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:03 PM

Teribus--

Will you never learn to read anything but your own bons mots?

I've told you, more than once, "negotiation" will wait until after the "surge" is over--and most US troops are gone. Interesting that the UK is already winding down its involvement in Bush's tragic Iraq war. I'd be curious to know what you think of this development in UK foreign policy--since you seem to feel that we must stop the Islamic hordes in Iraq--lest we have to fight them in Indiana--or London.

And you can save your feeble excuse about "standing down as Iraqis stand up". The UK army is leaving Iraq--long before the US. What's your view of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:21 AM

Guest TIA,

Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that you can't even be bothered to get their name right?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:42 AM

So, let's see Mr. T. Do you know exactly why Al quaeda turned on the US? There is a very specific original reason -- professed by Al Quaeda at the very time.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:34 AM

Ron,

Al-Qaeda did not turn on America as a result of American actions and foreign policy initiated by the Bush Administration, America was targeted and attacked long before GWB became President of the United States of America.

Subsequent to actions taken against those who would attack America, there have been no attacks on American Embassies, no attacks on home soil, no attacks on US (or anybody else's) shipping. The organisation that claimed responsibility for all the previous attacks has been sucked into fighting battles in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where they are coming off decidedly second best. To function effectively as an insurgent force you have to have the unstinting support of the local population and you have to be able to dictate the course of events. In both Iraq and Afghanistan support of the population is waning fast. That has come about with the realisation that Al-Qaeda and the insurgency can offer nothing but violence. In both Iraq and in Afghanistan the insurgent forces have been sucked into fighting battles that the Government and Security Forces have picked.

Now then Ron, just in case you overlooked it, I'll ask you again:

How do you end the "War on Terror"? Who do you negotiate with? What are you prepared to compromise on?

If you haven't got a clue (Like most Democratic Party contenders for the Presidency) Ron - Just say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:32 AM

Napolitano warms to Iraq surge; Dems wary
        
PHOENIX Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano's support of military operations in Iraq is drawing criticism from members of her own party.
Napolitano spoke to state lawmakers about Iraq after visiting the country earlier this month.

Napolitano said she's optimistic about the country's security.

And she doesn't plan to call for a troop withdrawal.

Sherry Bohlen -- the co-chairwoman of the Arizona Progressive Democratic Caucus -- says Napolitano's words have been puzzling to Democrats.

Bohlen says the governor should realize that most Americans don't support a surge of troops in Iraq.

The Progressive Democratic Caucus generally represents the left wing of the party on issues ranging from the war to health care and economic justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:26 PM

Dickey--

As that well known foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain--surely you know of her work-- said: That don't impress me much.

You're falling right into line--just as I said in January--first comes the bragging about all the neighborhoods "cleared" and how the body count is down. Perhaps you don't recall how the rest of the story goes. It's not a pretty picture.

To simplify for your giant brain, I'll just say that --as General Petraeus recognizes, even if you don't---no progress can be claimed for quite a while yet.

And if my scenario holds--(not that I want it to--it's just that I recognize reality--perhaps you'd be advised to take off your rose-colored glasses)--there will never be lasting progress in "Iraq". This is particularly likely if, as the WSJ now says, al Sadr has decided his people should no longer co-operate with the Americans.   The Sadrists have the whip-hand----and Bush does not.

All they have to do is wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 12:49 PM

The brightest image of the past two weeks was the scene of displaced families returning home; more than a thousand families are back to their homes under the protection of the Army and police. This figure invites hope that Baghdad will restore its social, ethnic and religious mosaic.

Marketplaces are seeing more activity and stores that were long shuttered are reopening--including even some liquor stores that came under vicious attacks in the past. This is a sign that extremists no longer can intimidate people and hold the city hostage. All of this gives the sense that law is being imposed.

Checkpoints are not seen as scary threats to the innocent. They look more professional and impartial as they include members of the police, army, multinational forces and even traffic cops with laptops verifying registration papers. We've lost the fear that checkpoints might be traps set by death squads; they search everyone, even official convoys and ambulances.

We feel safer about moving in the city now, and politicians who used to hide behind the walls of the Green Zone are venturing out. Watching Mr. Maliki walking on Palestine Street in central Baghdad gave a positive impression that the state, and not the gangs, owns the streets.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009754

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 06:14 PM

Dickey--

Any student of history knows that FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, and that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. However it is clear that Lincoln only did it during a specific national emergency--not an amorphous--and by definition endless- "war on terror".

Bush thinks the "war on terror" gives him carte blanche to do anything. He needs to be disabused of this error. And anybody who still supports him needs to wake up.

As I've said before, it pays to dig beneath the surface. You may want to try it sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 11:04 PM

So, that means exactly what relative to Bush and Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 09:16 PM

Ron: I have shown examples of the things done by FDR and Lincoln that violated the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

That's what makes it so absurd that Teribus et al. look at Bush and see Churchill. Bush is the anti-Churchill. Instead of being painfully aware what war means, Bush, having absolutely no personal experience with war whatsoever, plunges heedlessly ahead into it--and anybody who opposes him is branded unpatriotic--read treasonous.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

"It is unknowable how long the conflict [in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -February, 2003

That's how it was sold to us. Not as a nine (or more?) year affair. They knew damn well the public wouldn't go for that. Would you?

The neocons did not understand what Churchill did:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

We tried to warn them, but.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM

Dickey--

You have yet to prove that you have any interest in history--or anything, it seems, than spouting simplistic slogans. Not a personal attack, just an observation. You're welcome to prove me wrong--but you've had many chances--and show no indication of even trying.

Oh, sorry, I was wrong--you are a bit trying.

But still amusing.




Teribus--

If you refuse to read, there's no point in even trying to discuss with you. Yet again, I never opposed the attack on Afghanistan--and, as president, have no plans to withdraw my troops from there soon--nor did I, as a humble citizen yesterday, indicate that I would.

Thanks for voting for me, by the way. Interesting that the vote of one British citizen was all it took to elect me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM

What was he referring to Tia?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:58 PM

So. Nine years. Hmm.

Can we all at now admit that at least Rumsfeld lied?

"Six days, six weeks...I don't think six months..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:45 PM

Maybe if they go back in time and fix it so the Golden Mosque had not been blown up.

These people have grudges from over a thousand years ago that they are still killing over. Like the split between the Sunnis and Shia in 632.

Blowing up that Mosque just renewed the blood feud for another 1300+ years.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

I think the violence will end quickly if the U.S. withdraws. I don't think it will end in two weeks but it will only end when the U.S. withdraws.

I do believe this, "The real objective is to weaken the Jaish al-Mehdi [Mehdi Army] because this is - by far - the largest and most popular resistance movement in Iraq. The Americans are also hoping to weaken the Sadrist movement as a whole. For the Americans there is no difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis. The Americans fight anyone that resists them, but they talk about Shi'ites and Sunnis in order to pretend the problem is among the Iraqis themselves, not between the American occupation army and the Iraqi resistance."

and this:

MA: "What about the foreign component of the terrorist campaign? I am referring to the so-called jihadi Salafis and the takfiris; what are you going to do with them?"

MK: "These people took advantage of the American occupation of Iraq. Their propaganda rests on the claim that they are in Iraq to fight the Americans. Once the Americans leave, their support bases in Iraq will evaporate overnight. I don't think these people will give the Iraqis too much trouble. In any case, the Iraqis have the capability to deal with them in a quick and decisive manner."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:25 AM

I have heard that an insurgency usually lasts 9 years.

If we stay 9 years it should be sucessful. Hopefully our involvement will decrease during that period.

If we pull out, Iran may be able help the Shia to massacre the Sunnis in two weeks. That is probably what the guy meant when he said "all of this can be sorted out in a week, maximum two weeks"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:53 PM

I do not.
Do you believe it will stop in 5 years if we stay?
How 'bout 10 years?
When?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:34 PM

Dianavan: Do you believe all of the violence will end in a week or two if the US withdraws?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

Lets give others a chance to read the article and see what they think when statements are not taken out of context.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

Dinavan: Are you saying that if America withdraws from Iraq, everything will be OK?

"MA: Given the intensity of the sectarian war in the past two years, will all the deaths, displacement, misery, resentment and thirst for revenge that go with it; you really think all this can be settled in a two-week war?

MK: Yes, all of this can be sorted out in a week, maximum two weeks.
"

Do you believe this Dianavan?

"Abedin: What they do essentially is work with militias and armed factions in Iraq, and they enable them to gain a critical advantage over their adversaries -- and their adversaries are, first and foremost, the Sunni factions."

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1208.html



"According to Mahan Abedin, research director at the London-based Center for the Study of Terrorism, the Quds Force operates as an elite special-operations unit for the Revolutionary Guard. Its core group of operatives numbers about 800, with a slightly larger support group.

Quds operatives have carried out intelligence and military missions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Bosnia and Sudan.

Iran has extensive political, cultural and religious links to major Iraqi Shiite leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and top figures in virtually every major Shiite political party.

Quds operatives are widely thought to have provided training and other support to militias tied to the Shiite factions in Iraq that have clashed with U.S. and allied forces."

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070218-103953-6843r.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM

Here is an excellent interview that explains the Sadrist movement in Iraq and why the U.S. should withdraw.

"Mr. Abedin is an expert on Iran, Iraq and Islamic movements and ideologies."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20070308&articleId=5004

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:51 AM

Dear "Peace-Monger" Ron, again you are deliberately missing the point to avoid answering the question. To aid your ailing skills at comprehension I will give you a clue. The question regarding who you negotiate with is not Iraq specific so your:

" the "negotiating" you are talking of will have to wait until the "surge" is over"

as an answer is way off the mark.

Hypothetical situation, "Peace-Monger" Ron, you have been elected President of the USA and are now correcting all the supposed ills of the previous regime, you have withdrawn your troops from Iraq and from Afghanistan and from anywhere else that you have a mind to. Now how do you end the "War on Terror"? Who do you negotiate with? What are you prepared to compromise on? Remembering of course that those terrorists put your nation in their cross-hairs almost twenty years ago, i.e. long before GWB was elected, and long before the US involvement in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

Ron: Now your responses are becoming 100% personal attacks. You didn't even give me a reading assignment.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:14 PM

Dickey--

So sorry to tell you that history is not a series of bumper-stickers--as you seem to think it is. And in fact it is often worthwhile to dig below the surface. If of course you want to learn something. But perhaps you don't.

They say that ignorance is bliss. I've never found that. Maybe you have.



Teribus--

I didn't think I'd have time to attend to you. But the internet classical station is playing the Mozart Clarinet Quintet--so of course I can't leave.

At any rate, your reading skills, I'm sorry to say, are deteriorating yet again. Must be a common Bushite failing. I was never against the attack on Afghanistan--and have said so several times--if you ever read anything but your own bons mots.

And, as I said, the "negotiating" you are talking of will have to wait until the "surge" is over. That's the only time we will know how things have changed--if they have. Added to which, some important figures--like al Sadr-- are not available at this point.

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

And the "big difference" is what?
What hairs are we splitting now?
Oh yes, let's please argue about tiny little details and semantics using voluminous posts with lots of acronyms.

I told you what factions are fighting. Now you want what exactly?

Naahhh. Nevermind. I keep getting sucked into this 4-year-old(both chronologically and mentally BTW) tail-chasing game.

I'm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:20 PM

Teribus - Yes, there is a civil war in Iraq and Maliki is doing all he can to keep his govt. in power. Who are the two sides? Sunni and Shia.

I did not say that Iran should occupy Iraq. I did say that Al-Sadr's army (with backing from Iran) could help keep Maliki in power. Of course thats not going to happen because Bush (the occupier) will put Allawi in power before he allows the present government to succeed - the democratic govt. he said he wanted. Now we know that all Bush really wanted was another puppet.

btw - Although I agree with much of what Ron has to say, we are not the same 'lot' as you put it. It is that kind of black and white thinking that creates conflict in our world.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

No Tia you answered the following questions in the post you refer to:

"In Iraq at present do you believe that MNF troops are still fighting the war that began in March 2003?"

"Who do you believe that the MNF troops are currently fighting?"

Now who are the "sides" that are fighting this "civil war"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:22 AM

Teribus asks me "Perhaps you can tell us what factions are "fighting" this "civil war"?

If you've been reading, and not just posting, you would know that you already asked me this very question, and I immediately answered it -- in this very thread!

See:
Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA - PM
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:38 PM

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:56 AM

"Maliki didn't want U.S. troops"

I have seen no indications of this. I have seen that he was "uneasy" about it and that he "had not acquiesced" to it.

To say he didn't want them is rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

Well then Tia:

"What's going on in Iraq meets every definition of civil war."

Perhaps you can tell us what factions are "fighting" this "civil war"? Perhaps you can outline their goals and aspirations for the country? Perhaps you can name the leaders of the sides fighting this "civil war", who no doubt wish to lead the country once their victory is assured?

What is going on in Iraq today is as much a "civil war" as there was a "civil war" in Northern ireland 1969 to 1998 - Clue for you TIA it wasn't, and no-one ever claimed that it was.

"Better for us to be there for 27 years, than for Iran to be there for 27 years."

Damn right as far as the people of Iraq and those in the rest of the region are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:11 AM

What's going on in Iraq meets every definition of civil war. Well, okay, maybe not GWB's and his supporters, but everyone else. And our boys and girls are in the middle of it.

And, I sense mission creep (again). Now, the reason we are in Iraq (reason number 12 or 13 I think) is to keep Iran from getting involved in Iraq's internal affairs.

Better for us to be there for 27 years, than for Iran to be there for 27 years. At least that's what we told before the invasion...oh wait, wrong thread...this belongs in the Proof Bush Lied thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM

dianavan - 07 Mar 07 - 02:46 AM

"Maliki should tell the U.S. to go home and let al-Sadr's Mahdi Army deal with the Sunnis. It is, after all, an Iraqi problem. With the help of Iran, the insurgency wouldn't have a chance."

I take it that this gem hasn't been run past Ron Davies then Dianavan? It is also a recipe that guarantees the "Civil War", you lot are always harping on about, but which as yet has still to 2kick-off".

You do seem rather hell bent on getting Iran involved in Iraq's internal affairs in much the same way that Syria got involved in those of the Lebanon (i.e. an army of occupation for 27 years).

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

Actually Dickie, Al Quaeda doesn't seem to be the least bit intimidated by U.S. troops. The reason Maliki didn't want U.S. troops, originally, is because he would have to disband the Shiite Militia and let the U.S. deal with the Sunni insurgency and/or Al Quaeda. He accepted a billion dollars in reconstruction aid and gave the U.S. the go-ahead. Too bad. As usual, the U.S. is just prolonging the agony.

Maliki should tell the U.S. to go home and let al-Sadr's Mahdi Army deal with the Sunnis. It is, after all, an Iraqi problem. With the help of Iran, the insurgency wouldn't have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:36 PM

I think it is those Sunni's who do not want more troops.

They just morphed all by themselves with no outside al-Qaeda influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:51 PM

For some reason, your link does not work, Dickey.

I did find another article on the same subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1309147200&en=ac256f3cd52fe9ed&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It says that the alleged perpetrator was Mr. Badri.

"Mr. Badri was born in Samarra and comes from a predominantly Sunni Arab tribe that is common in Salahuddin province, the home region of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Rubaie said. He said Mr. Badri had ties to Saddam Hussein's government and was a member of the Army of Ansar al-Sunna before joining Al Qaeda. Ansar al-Sunna is a particularly violent religious group that was founded in the far north after the American invasion, but has since recruited members from all across Iraq, including volatile Anbar province."

So you see, Dickie, since the U.S. invasion, most law-abiding Sunnis have fled Iraq; some of those loyal to Saddam, have morphed into Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

The text shows up for me.

If I cut and past you mean spiritedly threaten me about copyright infringement.

Amongst the text: "BAGHDAD The Samarra shrine bombing, which set off waves of sectarian killing that are still plaguing the country, was the brainchild of an Iraqi member of Al Qaeda, and not a foreign terrorist, a senior Iraqi official said today.

Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, the country's national security adviser, identified Haitham al-Badri as the planner of the February attack. He said that Badri, a member of a Sunni tribe from Salahadin province, which includes Samarra, was currently a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but earlier had belonged to a different Iraqi insurgent group, Ansar al-Sunna.

Rubaie said that the recent capture of a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Yousri Fakher Mohammed Ali, a Tunisian also known as Abu Qudama, had led to the identification of Badri.

Abu Qudama was wounded and captured several days ago after a group of 16 insurgents tried to storm a checkpoint in al-Dhuluiya, 25 miles north of Baghdad, Rubaie said. All the other attackers were killed, and afterwards, Abu Qudama confessed to killing many Iraqis, and provided details of the Samarra bombing...

...That confession yielded several new details about the shrine bombing, Rubaie. He said it was the work of a team of two Iraqis, four Saudis and Abu Qudama,under the direction of Badri."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:41 AM

Dickey, there is no text in the link, only the title, "Shrine blast suspect is held, Iraqi official says"

May I remind you that a suspect is only a suspect.

You'll have to do better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:47 AM

Dianavan: See

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/28/africa/web.0628iraq.php

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus--

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

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

There's hope for you yet.

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

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

Dickey--

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

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

QED


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

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

Dianavan:

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

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

Your guess is correct.

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

You have ducked the question Ron:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many were displaced iraqis returned before the invasion?.

What caused the Sunnis to flee?

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

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

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

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

What's your point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teribus-

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

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




Dickey--

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is your point anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cat got your tongue Ron?

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

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

whopee-doo

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

You must be overjoyed, Dickey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Peace-mongers" eh Ron?

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

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

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

TIA:

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

Dear al-Qaeda:

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

signed:

Libs

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

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

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

Implicates us in what pray tell?

"getting us into this mess"?

Bullshit.

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

We were right.

You and yours were wrong.

End of story.

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

Bye.

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

Dickey - You really don't get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"by supporting our enemies"

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

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

When the going gets tough the tough run for it.

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

"Let's get the fuck out of here"

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

Current situation is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Thank you libs for getting us into this mess"

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona legislator back at Capitol after Iraq duty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the conflict end if the US leaves?

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

From someone who has a son in Iraq:

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

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

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

End of rant. Late night frustration. Goodnight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome presence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My apploogies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what does that mean to you?

To me it means the security measures are necessary.

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

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

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

Iraq claims success with drop in deaths

By KIM GAMEL
Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

The Times and Iraq: A Sample of the Coverage

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

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

Please explain that to Ron.

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

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

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

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

Source please.

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

Excessive use of upper case? HORRORS!

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Triing
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:53 AM

Yikes!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:48 AM

His readers, Dickey?
I fear they have left because you are unable to provide even an interesting dialectic to back your silly assertions. We are a tad bored with finger-jabbing, excessive use of upper case and 'na na na-na nah' playground tactics along the lines of 'You refuse to answer - aha - I've won!'
So yes, you have won, in that you have bored everyone shitless. I don't imagine you've persauded a single person to change his or her views and have merely made most of us more resolute, safe in the knowledge that with such imbeciles supporting it, the current US administration must surely be on the way out.
Now go and look up the work 'Pyrrhic' in your dictionary, there's a love.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:14 AM

First question I saked Ron which he never answered.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Now where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?
Ron never answered. Possible answers would be to say "it did not say that" that or to explain where it said that.

Instead of answering he claims he never accused Bush of trying to make a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and changes his assertion to say Bush was trying to scare people about a future attack like 9/11.

Second question:
Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Possible answers would be yes or no.

Ron refuses to answer the question directly.

Both of the questions are simple not complex and based on something else being true.

He makes an assertion:
"JFK " stuck to his guns" needlessly and recklessly, endangering the world to save his and RFK's political careers."

Demands that I respond to that and says:

"I note you have provided precisely zero evidence against this assertion."

That's right Ron I haven't nor have I claimed to have any evidence nor have I tried nor do I feel compelled to. You are entitled to that assertion just like your copyrighted Intellectual Giant assertion.

Then he asks a complex question, falsely claims it is a simple question and demands an answer"

"Do you believe JFK should have been willing to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public?"

But that's Ron, the crusher of the opinions of others.

Wonder why his readers have left.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:00 PM

Dickey--

I've answered your question--more than once. Your posturing only convinces readers that you in fact can't read English.   Basically, you have no more readers--they're probably bored.

And it's very telling that no matter how many times I ask you to address my question--about the trade---you refuse to do so.

In fact, even I am getting bored with you--especially since you can't seem to grasp that I have already answered your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:37 AM

What could be easier than yes or no?

As evidenced by his personal attacks, I detect a deep seated hostility in Ron for anybody that disagrees with him. Such people must be crushed at any cost. Ron is entitled to his opinion but others are not entitled to theirs.

I can imagine what ensues when he orders a hamburger and is asked "with cheese"?

I think that whether JFK was correct or not, it was good that he kept the missiles out of Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:26 PM

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

What a joke!

When will Bush figure it out?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:41 PM

Dickey--

And since I've answered your question, although you don't seem to realize it, are you capable of starting to deal with mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:37 PM

Not angry, just a bit discouraged at the difficulty in getting you to understand English. Now, you were going to tell me what part of "Obviously the missiles had to be removed" you don't understand. Is the verb perhaps hard to find?

You must understand that if you don't comprehend English, it's a bit difficult to converse with you. Perhaps it hinders you in your everyday life also. If so, you have very little basis to criticize Hispanic immigrants. (Not that it's likely to stop you from doing so.) But not understanding also makes you easy prey for propaganda--especially if you don't recognize it. I'm sure Mr. Bush is grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:29 PM

Another complex question attached to a personal attack but unaccompanied by a yes or no.

If your life is all that complicated it is no wonder you are so angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:20 PM

Dickey--


What part of "Obviously the missiles had to be removed" do you not understand?

Are all Bushites really as thick as you? Not a personal attack (Heaven forbid), just a matter of curiosity.

And it's painfully obvious that any question such as the one I posed--about the trade-- is more than a bit beyond your mental capacity. Again, not an attack, just an observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:28 AM

From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:11 PM

Dickey--

You are truly pathetic, I'm sorry to say. Any sensible American would be glad the missles were removed from Cuba. I modestly claim to be a sensible American. Obviously the missles had to be removed. My only point--which you continue to ignore--is that JFK foolishly and needlessly ran the risk of Khrushchev's turning the deal down--and thereby risked nuclear war-- by his (JFK's) stubborn insistence in refusing to make public the agreement that resulted in the missles being removed from Cuba. That deal was: Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba.

And the main reason he did it was to preserve his and RFK's political careers--which would have been seriously injured by "compromising with Communists"--especially after the Bay of Pigs disaster.

And I am still patiently waiting for evidence from you--as opposed to innuendo/slander---(which is obviously your strong suit)-- that my assertion is incorrect

So this is hoe RD answers a yes or no question?

Why all the personal attacks? His anger seems to be taking control.

Frankly I don't give a damn how JFK did it. I am just glad he did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM

He can read, he might be able to comprehend most of it but he is unable to critically analyse the content.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:25 PM

Dickey--

Check my posting of 19 Feb 2007 1:11 PM. Are you really incapable of reading?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:10 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to answer the question?

Was it good or bad? You do know the difference don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:03 PM

Dickey--

I have told you--if you ever learn to read--that it is obvious the US could not tolerate nuclear missiles in Cuba.

I'm sorry if that is the only question you have any interest in.

But you brought up the topic of the missile crisis. And despite your charming childishly simplistic approach to--everything, it appears-------- in history--if you ever read any-- there are shades of gray.

It is a totally legitimate question as to whether JFK handled the crisis right--or needlessly jeopardized the world--by refusing to make the trade public--to maximize his own political gain.

And if, as I suspect, you have no idea on this topic, you will confirm that you are not worth
my time--and I will draw the proper conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:42 PM

All I asked was a simple question: Are you glad JFK kept nukes out of Cuba or not?

It seems you are going to a lot of unnecessary work to avoid answering.

Another one of Ron's methods to try to wear down anybody that does not have the same opinions.

Refuse to answer a simple question. Pick a side issue to ask a question about and try to use that and personal attacks to prove his assertion.

Ron, you are welcome to your opinions about JFK. Hold them and cherish them forever. But whatever you are trying to assert, good or bad about JFK, does it mean you are glad that JFK kept nukes out of Cuba or are you not glad?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:55 PM

"missile", of course. I knew the other didn't look right.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:54 PM

Dickey--


It is a reasonable question--and not that hard to figure out--to anybody who has made the slightest effort to find out about the Cuban missle crisis.

So: Should JFK have been willing to announce the trade of Cuban missles for Jupiter missles? Yes or no?

If you want to know who brought up the topic of the missile crisis, look in the mirror.

It breaks my heart that it may not be quite simple enough to suit you--no surprise that as a good Bushite, if the issue isn't absurdly simple, you can't handle it. But perhaps in the future you might want to think twice before bringing up historical issues about which you know virtually nothing--and have no desire to learn either.


Sleep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM

Ron: You ask a complex question and falsely claim it is a simple question. That says a lot about your sincerity.

I have not taken any position on your depiction of the situation.

All I asked was a simple question: Are you glad JFK kept nukes out of Cuba or not?

It seems you are going to a lot of unecessary work to avoid answering.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:25 PM

Q: "Do the statements of HRC and Kerry help to form the opinion of Americans toward Iran?"

A: Only in a very minor way. They are not nearly as widely disseminated as the statements of senior personnel in the Bush Administration and their media echo chamber (Limbaugh, Hannity, Gibson, O'Reilly, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:13 PM

Dickey--

And by the way, do you recall who it was who brought up the Cuban missle crisis in this thread? One clue: Not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:04 PM

Dickey--

Why don't you stop tying yourself up in knots in a desperate attempt to avoid answering the question?

JFK was unwilling to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public--for the very good reason (politically) that I cited.

At that point, anti-Communist hysteria was rampant. You may have heard about air-raid drills--with children told to get under their desks. The Bay of Pigs operation, just the previous year, had been a disaster. JFK and Nixon had competed in the 1960 election as to who was the stronger anti-Communist--and JFK had trumpeted a "missle gap" which did not exist.

JFK was not about to publicly compromise with Communists--even though, by refusing to acknowledge the above-cited trade, he ran the risk of Khrushchev turning down the deal--and thus ran the risk, needlessly, of nuclear war.

When it came time for JFK to be a "profile in courage" by risking his political career for the safety of the world, he wouldn't do it.


I note also that you have provided, as usual, precisely zero evidence against my depiction of the situation.


It's time for you to fish or cut bait. Do you believe JFK should have made the missles- for- missles deal public? Yes or no?


Hope you get more sleep tonight. Don't stay up all night agonizing over this. But you might want to actually do some research--for a change-- before responding.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:39 AM

That question is based on the assumption that he was not willing. It is therefor a complex question, not a simple question.

All of this because you don't want to answer my simple question:

Do the statements of HRC and Kerry help to form the opinion of Americans toward Iran?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:16 PM

Dickey--

Your clumsiness is truly amazing.   You need not play coy--it's not convincing.

You know as well as I do that an American who would be in favor of Soviet nuclear missles in Cuba is unpatriotic. I think we agree on that.

Dickey 15 Feb 2007 10:34 PM: "So you would prefer nukes in Cuba".

QED

(not that I expect you'll know what that means--but virtually anybody else reading it will.)




I hope you're making progress with your sax.

You are making none here--except possibly more evidence for the the allegation that "Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool"--which we know of course is not true.


Now, again: Do you believe JFK should have been willing to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public?

Simple question: yes or no?

"I don't know" is not acceptable---unless you want to confirm the already strong impression that you sound off on historical issues without having any knowledge of history--or even enough curiosity to even do any research to learn something.

Schlaf gut.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:46 PM

I guess that billion dollars helped him get over his uneasiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:16 PM

Dianavan:

"Al-Maliki is uneasy" and "al-Maliki had not acquiesced" said by aids and advisers does not translate into "Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:13 PM

I asked you if you were glad JFK kept nukes out of Cuba. Can you answer that yes or no? Obviously not because all you can respond with is a personal attack and another question.

Also you falsely accuse me of saying you are unpatriotic.

You got my evidence, you just keep denying it while you have produced no evidence except your opinion and personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:30 PM

The infamous poll was it. And it didn't hold water.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:24 PM

Dickey--

And you have still given no clear evidence against the propaganda campaign (summer 2002 to March 2003).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:18 PM

OK Dickey--do you think JFK should have been willing to make the trade-- (Jupiter missles for missles in Cuba)-- public? Yes or no?

Simple question. You should be able to manage an answer.

And if you deny the accusation that you (and Bush) are seeking to brand people who disagree with Bush (and you) as unpatriotic, I can give you chapter and verse.

Smearing people this way has been a standard Bush tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:30 PM

the Soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and in exchange
the US removed the missiles from Turkey.

actually the missiles in cuba would be irrelevant in only a few years when one nuclear sub could nuke all major cities in the US.

btw. 30 years later when McNamara asked Fidel if he would have recommended to the Soviets that the 165 missiles on Cuba be used..

MacNamara was shocked when Fidel said not only that he 'would' have, he 'did' recommend they be used. (knowing full well that Cuba would be destroyed - among others)

Another shocker for MacNamara..
ALso the US naval blockade involved firing relatively harmless depth charges at Soviet subs to get them to surface (MacNamaras suggestion)
Years later he was surprised to learn that the Soviet Submarine commanders actually did not have radio contact with Moscow and were authorized to launch nuclear weapons if attacked. (thankfully the Soviet commander didnot and thats why we are able to have this conversation today). The US did not know that Soviet sub commanders were authorized to use nuclear weapons and they didnt know that they had lost radio contact.

still think it was a good thing the world was brought to the brink of nuclear war?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 02:46 PM

I can say I am glad the missles were removed with out launching a personal attack.

RD cannot. Seems like his every position is supported only by personal attacks.

I have presented the factual evidence that he wanted with out slander or innuendo which RD cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:30 PM

Dickey--

Your slander is in implying--or baldly stating---that anybody who does not believe in using force as a first-- not a last-- resort, is unpatriotic. Perfect Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:11 PM

Dickey--

You are truly pathetic, I'm sorry to say. Any sensible American would be glad the missles were removed from Cuba. I modestly claim to be a sensible American. Obviously the missles had to be removed. My only point--which you continue to ignore--is that JFK foolishly and needlessly ran the risk of Khrushchev's turning the deal down--and thereby risked nuclear war-- by his (JFK's) stubborn insistence in refusing to make public the agreement that resulted in the missles being removed from Cuba. That deal was: Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba.

And the main reason he did it was to preserve his and RFK's political careers--which would have been seriously injured by "compromising with Communists"--especially after the Bay of Pigs disaster.

And I am still patiently waiting for evidence from you--as opposed to innuendo/slander---(which is obviously your strong suit)-- that my assertion is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:12 AM

As I recall, the "best evidence" was the poll showing public belief in a 911-Iraq connection going down during the propoganda campaign. But, that "reasoning" was destroyed weeks ago (i.e. by lack of a control group, and confusion of temporal coincidence with causation).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:48 AM

Never did I say that you said that the US would be better off with soviet missles in Cuba.

Still waiting for you to say wether it is good or bad that JFK kept nukes out of Cuba.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your accusation. If you had proof you wouldn't need personal attacks to prop up your assertions.

y evidence against the Iraq propaganda campaign has been giiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 04:06 PM

No, I'd be more likely to ask directions from someone who knew the city, and then actually follow those directions rather than scoffing at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 03:29 PM

Dickey--

You still have that old problem about poor reading. Nowhere did I say the US would be better off with Soviet missiles in Cuba--just that JFK stupidly risked nuclear war by not allowing Khrushchev to save face--by publicly announcing the trade of Jupiter missles for the missles in Cuba. By insisting on this, JFK risked Khrushchev's turning the deal down.

Still waiting for actual evidence from you against my assertion.

Of course I do realize that it's a totally unreasonable requirement to expect a Bushite to read anything carefully. But it does make talking to you close to worthless.


And we're all still patiently waiting for that evidence you have refuting the Iraq propaganda campaign.

You might want to note that evidence is different from running off at the mouth--though you tend to confuse the two often. You may want to try to avoid that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 02:19 AM

Try to imagine, Dickey, a Muslim Theocracy of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, etc. Does that scare you? I'm sure it does.   

Still, I'd rather see that, than nuclear war. How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:33 AM

TIA:

Your course of action would be to turn the van around and go home I presume.

That one word answer "carnage" sounds pretty simplistic.

I can say it will get dark tonight with the same degree of accuracy.

What will happen on down the road? Nuclear war for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:16 PM

The premise of this thread was that Maliki didn't want more troops.

That was before Bush offerred him a billion dollars.

That was also before al-Sadr went underground.

I still maintain that Bush has played right into the hands of those who wish to see Iraq become an Islamic State.

...and that, Dickey, is the monster that Bush has unleashed.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM

A story...

Dickey's band is on the way to a gig, with Dickey driving the van. Approaching a stoplight, he flips on his turn signal. Everyone tells him to not turn. "Go straight here, don't turn or you will get hopelessly lost." Dickey turns anyhow, and everyone tells him it was a mistake. Soon they are hopelessly lost, and nobody knows the way. So, Dickey turns around and yells at the people in the back of the van because they cannot tell him a quick way to the gig. "See", says Dickey, "you are just negative Dickey-bashers. You have no plan for getting to the gig." Someone points out that we wouldn't be in this mess if Dickey had listened. Dickey says "oh yeah, well if you are so smart, which way is the gig? So, you don't know do you? Well then, you had better let me do the driving!"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:22 PM

"Would one of those please demonstrate their eerie skill by predicting what will happen it the US pulls out of Iraq?"

Dickey Lad, you asked this same question weeks ago, and I answered it immediately and specifically. Asking it again is a cute little rhetorical trick. I won't answer it again (my own cute little trick - isn't this fun?).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM

Which means your whole premise for this thread was and is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM

"Al-Sadr's followers agreed to rejoin the government last month, although al-Maliki made none of the concessions the firebrand Shiite cleric demanded." - Dickey

Yes, and al-Sadr has apparently retreated to Iran. Amazing what a billion dollars can do. This doesn't mean, however, that his militia has entirely disbanded. Nor does it mean they will cease to support the Iraqi Army in their fight against al-queda, the Baathists and other Sunni insurgents.

Although al-Sadr wants U.S. troops out, his militia is not responsible for the majority of American deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:42 PM

ATT Ron:

"I hear that there are a number of commando and assassination squads that are disconnected and controlled directly by Iran," the senior Iraqi official said, citing information directly from the prime minister's office. "They have supplied JAM and others with significant weaponry and training," he said using shorthand for the group, from its name in Arabic, Jaish al Mahdi.

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/228/52/

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM

Ron: The burden of proof is on the accuser. You have zero proof.

"you still haven't found even one quote to refute the Bush propaganda campaign during the period I specified" Yes I have but you disqualify any proof provided using your personal opinion, proped up with personal attacks which amounts to zero proof

You cannot answer a simple yes or no question. You can't say if something is good or bad.

And even though you claim to be able to predict things you cannot say what would have happened if Russia kept it's nukes in Cuba.

I don't know what would have happened but I believe it wouldn't have been good and I am glad Nukes were kept our of Cuba.

You can't admit to what you believe which leads one to the conclusion that you espouse things you do not believe, hoping someone else will believe them isn't that a definition of propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:12 PM

Dickey--


As I said, diplomacy frequently involves letting the opponent have a concession. By refusing to let Khrushchev save face, by announcing the deal, JFK stupidly, and needlessly, risked Khrushchev's turning the deal --(Jupiter missiles in Turkey for Soviet missles in Cuba)--down---and thereby risked nuclear war.   Had he done this for Khrushchev, he would have had the same result--Soviet missles removed.

I note you have provided precisely zero evidence against this assertion.

And as I also said, as a good Bushite you can't be expected to know anything about diplomacy.    (Or history, it appears).

If a problem can't be solved by force, you're helpless--and hopeless.


QED

And somehow you still haven't found even one quote to refute the Bush propaganda campaign during the period I specified.

But never mind, your sax is calling you--(and music is calling me).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:57 AM

Dianavan:"One of the Sadrist politicians' top demands was a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, a handover of security to the Iraqi government and a promise not to agree to more U.S. troops without the consent of the parliament. They returned only after a committee was formed to discuss their demands and present them to the parliament, said Nassar al-Rubaie, head of the Sadrist bloc."

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16675902.htm

"BAGHDAD -- When radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters walked out of the Iraqi government last November to protest Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's meeting in Jordan with President Bush, everyone expected al-Maliki to send an emissary to coax the radical anti-U.S. cleric back into the fold.

When al-Sadr dispatched two envoys, however, al-Maliki asked what they wanted. When he was told that they wanted to discuss the budget, he had them thrown out.

"I don't want to see any of them," one of al-Maliki's aides recalled him saying. "Tell them to come back with an apology because they've let down the government at a crucial time."

Al-Sadr's followers agreed to rejoin the government last month, although al-Maliki made none of the concessions the firebrand Shiite cleric demanded.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:42 AM

When the answer is an obvious yes, RD relies on spin to avoid the answer.

Either it was good that JFK managed to keep nukes out of Cuba or not. Nobody asked what he should have done.

Either the statements of HRC and Kerry influence American opinion of Iran or they don't. Either they reinforce Bush's statements or they don't.

RD wishes to ignore this because he wants everything blamed on Bush, even though he supports Bush when his appointees convict border agent trying to repel illegal alien drug smugglers.

And he has no evidence to prove that there was a propaganda campaign, just his interpretation of what was said. Sir, the burden of proof is on the accuser. People have to be proven guilty, not the other way around and personal opinions do not constitute proof, especially when ones opinions require personal attacks for support. Am I supposed to prove Bush didn't say what he didn't say?


"Plenty here amply DEMONSTRATED the skill"

Would one of those please demonstrate their eerie skill by predicting what will happen it the US pulls out of Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:20 AM

I don't think its odd that so many predicted what would happen. Thats just plain common sense and a bit of history. What's wierd is that Bush got away with it and is still getting away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:11 AM

Dickey said snidely: "I don't pretend to tell the future. I keave that up to those that profess having the skill."

There's no profess about it sweetie. Plenty here amply DEMONSTRATED the skill. Go read posts from late 2002/early 2003. It's just plain eerie.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:49 PM

My dear friend Dickey--


That's right--when in doubt, smear the opposition as unpatriotic. Perfect Bush. That's a main reason why the US is polarized--precisely that sort of attitude.

And you wonder why thinking people are not fans of Bush. It seems only yahoos are.

As usual, you read poorly. I've already explained the situation to you. But here it is again.

JFK " stuck to his guns" needlessly and recklessly, endangering the world to save his and RFK's political careers.

He could have had the same result--withdrawal of the missles from Cuba--if he had been willing to let Khrushchev proclaim that Jupiters had been exchanged for the Cuban missles. And, as I recall, the Jupiters were scheduled to be removed soon anyway, as they were close to obsolete.


I did not say I would be happy to have Soviet missles in Cuba. But JFK could and should have been willing to let Khrushchev save face--important for him--in order for the missles to be withdrawn. By refusing to do so, he risked the Soviets turning down the deal--and thereby risked nuclear war.

I have told you what JFK should have done.   If you disagree, please specify exactly why I am wrong--and please use some logic --for a change.

In diplomacy--- unlike debating---it is often worthwhile to let the opposition derive a benefit from the process. But of course, as a good Bushite, you can't be expected to know anything about diplomacy.

I have little time to waste on you these days--please read some history before you favor us with more of your (brilliant?) analyses.

Re: Kerry and Hillary--I've already answered that question. Sorry if you don't like the answer. Maybe eventually you'll understand that not every issue is black and white. But then your hero Mr. Bush doesn't, so perhaps you are also a hopeless case. As Captain Ginger points out, shades of gray aren't your strong suit.

You'd be best advised to spend more time on reading and music, as I intend to do.
I'm sorry to say you are getting boring.



Alternatively, in your copious spare time, you can come up with just one quote by a Bush regime spokesman, during the period summer 2002 to March 2003, clearly refuting any connection between Saddam and 9-11. (The one you have cited is worthless--it is severely undercut in the very next paragraph--similar to the "denials" that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.)


You still, after wasting all this time with absurd generalizations, have not come up with one clear quote--that is, one which is not badly undermined by what comes after.

The propaganda campaign by the Bush regime in that period is a fact, not a theory. And you still have no evidence to deny this.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:34 PM

I find one answer. You are not glad that JFK forced a showdown, made a deal or whatever, and kept Nukes out of Cuba.

So you would prefer nukes in Cuba. Now using your awesome powers of prediction, what would have happened if the Soviets put their nukes in Cuba.

And again, a simple yes or no answer, very easy for you:

Do the statements of HRC and Kerry help to form the opinion of Americans toward Iran?

And does "the rest of us" include you and everybody else the world that you have been appointed to speak for?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:53 PM

"to be seen"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:52 PM

Dickey--

HRC (Her Royal Clintonness?). Read what I said earlier on her. I do not support her.

Kerry--he observes; he does not hang the Iranian regime for the crime. Nor does Peter Pace -- (if you don't know who he is, please find out before posting again). Are Bush regime spokesmen beating the drum against Iran? Is Kerry? If you can't tell the difference, you need to do more reading.


5 years more in Iraq? Thanks for answering directly. But you're dreaming--and your dream is a nightmare for the rest of us.

If there is not dramatic improvement in Iraq within a year, the US will be gone from Iraq, aside from "advisors". If my Iraq scenario, discussed earlier, occurs, the US public will rebel against the Iraq war. Bush will be powerless to stop the withdrawal.

JFK and the missile crisis: again you need to do some more reading.

JFK engaged in duplicitous, foolhardy brinksmanship by not being willing to reveal the actual way the crisis was defused. Why? After the Bay of Pigs. he and RFK felt they could not afford politically to be seem to compromise with Communists. So they did not want to let Khrushchev reveal that the Cuban missiles were withdrawn in exchange for Jupiters in Turkey. By refusing to let Khrushchev do this--and thereby save face-- they risked his rejecting the deal--solely for their own political futures.

So they risked the safety of the world--for their careers.

Am I glad he stuck to his guns? No.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 01:06 AM

Do the statements of HRC and Kerry help to form the opinion of Americans toward Iran?

Do they reinforce what Bush says? Or is it the other way around?

I don't see the difference. But you claim it is different. Yes, different in the standards you hold different people to.

As for how long, how long did we stay in other countrys? Korea, Germany? How long does the average insurgency last? 9 years I think. We still have 5 years to go.

Have any other presidents had a hard line policy? Kennedy and the Missle crisis? Aren't you glad he stuck to his guns?

Have you ever heard of ANSWER? WWP? SWP?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 08:32 AM

Dickey--

Remember, Dickey, you are the intellectual giant. I can only guess, based on what I read--primarily in the Wall St. Journal.

But, in contrast to the Bush regime, I try not to pick force as the number one method to solve any problem.

And I ask for evidence before reaching a conclusion. I don't pick the conclusion--then look for evidence that supports it, while rejecting all other evidence--which is the Bush regime's SOP.

And I don't operate on the "axis of evil" premise.

If you think we should "try" in Iraq:

1)   What do you think we've been doing for the past 4 years?
2)   How long do you think US troops, in the current numbers, should stay in Iraq?   "I don't know" is not acceptable as an answer--that would mean an open-ended commitment.
3)   How many more dead American soldiers-- (not to mention "Coalition" and Iraqis)-- is it worth to you?


And if you don't think my scenario is likely, you have an obligation to provide yours--otherwise it will be obvious that you are not worth debating.

And I will draw the proper conclusion.


Re: Iran

There is a difference between observing and devising a conspiracy theory.

All parties can observe that some weapons used in Iraq were very likely made in Iran. It is however a leap to assert, as the Bush regime does, that this is the official policy of the Iranian government.


Does Maliki have complete control over Iraq?. If weapons made in Iraq were found in Turkey, would that be all the proof you would need that attacking Turkey was official Iraq policy?

Kerry, et al. observe; the Bush regime seeks to use the observations as reasons to attack. And I have already told you my view on Hillary.    Her statements are not helping anybody--though she imagines they are helping her.

Furthermore, please tell me why sabre-rattling against Iran will help the Iranian opposition against the current Iranian regime. As an article here has already pointed out, the Iranian government is already under pressure from various discontented groups. But Bush hardline policy--with threats to attack--make it easy for the Iranian regime to make the case that "we have to stick together against the American threat".

If you disagree, please say why--with logic of your own--not absurd red herrings from politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 12:13 AM

I don't pretend to tell the future. I keave that up to those that profess having the skill.

I believe trying has more chances of success than a retreat. I think there is an old saying, If at first you don't succeed.. you know the rest don't you?

So when Bush says anything about Iran it is a propaganda campaign but when Hillary or John Kerry say something the agrees with what Bush says it is what? Truth, lie or propaganda?

Surely a learned man like you must know.

Are you alleging that it is not official Iranian government policy?

Do Iranian agents decide on their own what countries to enter and whether to take weapons or not? DO they pay their own expenses? do they get paid by the Iranian government while wandering on their own?

I have many questions that need answering by an expert like yourself.

You see I can't just take things at face value. I need someone like you to devine the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:27 PM

Dickey--


So there are weapons coming from Iran. This is a revelation? Question is: is this the policy of the Iranian government? At this stage--unclear--as Peter Pace noted.

It may yet be clarified.

But so far, it appears the Bush regime is shooting from the hip, as usual, in alleging that it is is official Iranian government policy.


By the way, still waiting for your competing scenario of how "the surge" will play out. Since you seem to not think mine is likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:11 PM

So you trademarked something for me and Teribus? How kind of you.

I really need you to tell me what is going to happen and to help me sort out the propaganda from the lies and the truth.

Like this one:

   Speaking on ABC's "This Week" television programme, Senator John Kerry said he has no doubt that "there are weapons flowing across the border" from Iran.

    "Nobody questions, those of us who have been to Iraq and in the region know that there are Iranian instigators, agents in Iraq, and that's happening, there's no question," Kerry said.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:39 PM

Only problem is, Dickey, that I don't claim to be an intellectual giant. I have however, described both you and Teribus as IG's. Don't you think you deserve the designation? You need not be so modest. Your work speaks for you--and tells us everything we need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:35 PM

Hey don't run off and leave me. I need you to tell me what is really happening. I read one thing but you are able to interperet it into the truth.

It's like we are back in the dark ages when everything people saw was exactly what the evil spirits wanted them to see. Reality was always the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:29 PM

But, of course, he doesn't want to stop the flow of US body-bags enough to bring home the troops now. He must be seen to "win" in Iraq--even for a nanosecond. Otherwise the US public might possibly think the Iraq war was a criminal waste of lives and resources. And we can't have that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:22 PM

Bush just wants to stop the US body-bags. Not because of the human tragedy--if that were so, he never would have started the Iraq war----but because the continuing flow might possibly impair his "legacy"--which, at this point, is all he cares about.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:19 PM

Thanks for honoring my copyright, Dickey. I think there's still time to cancel my attorneys' visit to you. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

If you don't think my scenario for Iraq is likely, what's yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM

You may be right about Bush wanting victory but I still believe he would feel alot happier with a Sunni at the helm. Maliki is backed by al-Sadr and Bush doesn't like that at all. Bush never thought that his push for democracy would put a Shiite in power.

Dickey - I have given up talking to you. I never know if its you or truther or able or who. Go talk to a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM

So Maliki was aginst the surge before he was for the surge.

I see that you speak not only for Maliki but all of the people of Iraq.

And that I see the Intellectual Giant©, Ron, knows everything that will happen well in advance. That must be an awful responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:33 PM

By the way, Dickey, I have copyrighted the term "intellectual giant". My attorneys will be contacting you shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM

"--and he has denied-- is... "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:16 PM

Dianavan-

I'm sorry, I must disagree. Do you have one shred of evidence to support your allegation that Bush wants a Sunni puppet in Iraq?

What Bush wants is to be able to declare victory (again)--even for a microsecond--and then remove US troops from harm's way--stop the embarrassing flow of body bags-- a flow which tends to make people think the Iraq war may not be the triumph he assured us it would be.   Can't understand why that is so.

Interestingly enough, Bush may well get his wish--as I said earlier.

1)   Al Sadr has told his people to not wear their black uniforms for a while. They will melt back into the population--which will gratefully receive them.

2) Sunni extremists will go into the provinces, where they and their sympathizers know the territory--and the Americans don't.

3) Anybody else interested in revenge, civil war, or just crimes of opportunity will lie low for a while.

Bush and Maliki will brag about neighborhoods "cleared"--and the body count will go down.

Bush will declare that "the surge" worked.

Then the Americans will leave, and all will return to normal--that is, to current conditions of slaughter.

But Bush will have been able to claim victory--and that's all he wants.





The only thing that could possibly stop this scenario--as I've told Teribus over and over--and he has denied is if conditions change so that 1) Sunnis can trust the police-- and 2) they are guaranteed more oil income than would accrue to just the "Sunni" parts of Iraq.   These two changes are essential in order to cut down on the appeal of "the insurgency".

Without them, the Iraq situation will never improve.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

Dickey - At first, Maliki did not want more U.S. troops. He then agreed to a troop surge and removal of al-Sadr's, Mahdi militia. Unfortunately, the level of U.S. troops that Maliki thought would arrive have not materialized and now the terrorists (probably Sunni) have taken over.

I really do not think that Maliki should trust Bush. Bush does not want democracy, he wants a Sunni puppet in power in Iraq. He never expected democracy to include a Shiite as leader. Bush will continue to create havoc in Iraq until a Sunni is in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:34 PM

Er, Dicky, that's the trouble. Some doubtless do. Many surely don't. There is no 'Iraq' in a unitary sense. Some factions (particularly Maliki) depend on the US influence. Old foxes like Talebani can probably go either way, and many, many more do not want the US in Iraw.
But that's probably a bit too complicated for you, isn't it poppet. Shades of grey/gray aren't your strong suit.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:32 PM

I've told you my view on Hillary already, Dickey--when will you start reading what others say? It may save you from making some inane inquiries. That would be a pleasant change.

Not that I would ever want to suggest that you are an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.
As Cheney said, "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."





I do not like Hillary (Sam I am). I do not like her approach of trying to satisfy all imagined listeners. I would far prefer it if she would actually stand for something. (Not likely, it appears).

Her "tough guy" approach--"not take any option off the table" repels me. And in my view is stupid--since it tends to unify Iranians behind their current leader.

So, I'm sorry you won't get me to defend her on that.

But, as usual, you are incorrrect--that remark is not propaganda. Propaganda is speech attempting to convince your audience. That remark is not geared to convincing--except possibly to try to lure giant thinkers like yourself-----(who seem to see every problem as a nail--since you only have a hammer: the use of force)-----to support her.

Her remark will convince nobody to support an attack against Iran--in contrast to the Bush regime's continual linking of Saddam and 9-11 during the propaganda campaign against Iraq.   A campaign which--all together now--ran from summer 2002 to March 2003.

And which neither you nor Teribus--nor any other Mudcat Bushite-- have yet found even one quote to refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:22 PM

Tia: See

Iraqi PM: Surge delay is costing lives

Does Makiki want more troops ot not? Yes or no?

Iraq urges speed for U.S. surge

"...Iraqi politicians -- Shiite and Sunni alike -- urged the government to speed up implementation of the plan, which President Bush announced Jan. 11. The operation would put thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops on the street to protect civilians against sectarian bombers and death squads...."

Do the iraqis want more troops or not? Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:44 PM

See opening post.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:17 PM

Did or didn't Maliki want more troops?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:30 AM

From that same article, Dickey, "Under American pressure, Shiite politicians persuaded radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his Mahdi militiamen off the streets to avoid a confrontation with the Americans.

But many Shiites complain that the move effectively handed the streets to Sunni extremists before U.S. and Iraqi forces were ready to assume control.

"This delay in the implementation of the security plan is not good and has had negative consequences for Iraqis," said Falah Hassan, a spokesman for al-Sadr's movement. "We demand that the plan be executed as soon as possible because the terrorists are going too far in their vicious attacks."

That is exactly why Maliki didn't want to remove the Mahdi militiamen. Now that he has, there still are not enough U.S. troops and the Sunni's are taking over. Maliki and al-Sadr had it right and now the U.S. has botched it again. When will the U.S. allow Maliki to make the decisions about Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:18 AM

Iraqi PM: Surge delay is costing lives

Iraq urges speed for U.S. surge

"...Iraqi politicians -- Shiite and Sunni alike -- urged the government to speed up implementation of the plan, which President Bush announced Jan. 11. The operation would put thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops on the street to protect civilians against sectarian bombers and death squads...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:00 AM

As usual Ron cannot provide any facts or sate what he believes in.

Just some sort of meaningless, self admiring, meandering with condesending thinly veiled personal attacks.

Ron, an intellectual giant like yourself can certainly do better

Do believe that what Hillary said on January 19, 2006 is propaganda or not? A very easy answer for someone of superior intelligence to answer.

"And we cannot take any option off the table"

Would an invasion or threat of an invasion be one of her options on the table "And we cannot take any option off the table"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:49 PM

Actually I think the Lincoln quote was "You can fool some of the people....."--but it's the same principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:38 PM

Gee Dickey, I can't understand why you think I'm making personal attacks on you. I keep denying that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.




Re: Hillary: As usual, you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. If you think that by citing Hillary's words, you are somehow undercutting my position, you are sadly mistaken. I am no fan of Hillary. I think she's far too calculating in what she says--in a desperate--and futile--attempt to prove Lincoln wrong--"You can please some of the people...."

I am severely tempted to think that Hillary believes in nothing--except that she should be the next president of the US.

I find it fascinating that you don't deny you can't recognize propaganda when it comes from somebody you voted for. No surprise then that you don't recognize Bush's propaganda.

Added to which, there is a big jump between criticizing another country and persuading the US public that that country must be attacked. Bush's Iraq propaganda campaign was geared to the latter. Hillary's remarks, I venture to say, are not. When she comes out for invading Iran, you will start making sense.

You really do need to practice reading--and comprehending.

Personal attack? Perish the thought. Just friendly advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:54 PM

After eading this I don't know what Ron believes:

"By the way, it's interesting that you don't like either of my denials that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool..."

That must mean you think Dickey is in fact an amazingly credulous right-wing fool. Since, after all, I denied the assertion that he is. And you disagreed with me."

The only thing I can draw from it is that the learned Ron must resort to personal attacks in lieu of facts.

"the propaganda campaign against Iran which Bush-- (and giant intellects like your good self, Dickey?)--have in mind."

Is that a fact Ron? Do you believe that?

Seems to me that Hillary Clinton must be one of those giant intelects involved in Ron's alleged propaganda campaign against Iran:


Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs January 19, 2006

"...I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons...."

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

Sorry Teribus--your crystal ball has proven, shall we say, cloudier than that of most posters on this topic. There is no way to predict Saddam's health, had Bush not invaded, nor whether any rival could have arisen. The sons could easily have been at each others' throats. Etc.

Your glib assurances of how the future would have played out don't carry much weight.



My problem, however, is that it's just too easy to slash your feeble arguments to ribbons. I've really got to stop doing it--but it's just too much fun.

"Putting words in your mouth'--not likely. Just quoting you and your fellow sufferers in self-delusion. You give yourselves plenty of rope---to say the least.



To return to your favorite topic--the one we had so much fun with in 2005--I'm sure you remember. The one you were talking about--I think it was about a week ago.

So, whether Atta was in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official is "unconfirmed". Not only that, it's "UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT". And this is a BIG DEAL. Since otherwise you wouldn't have put it in ALL CAPITALS. I want to tell you I am IMPRESSED.

Almost as impressed as I was with your earlier arguments on this topic. My all-time favorite of your debate points has to be your post of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM.



Ron Davies 03 Dec 05 05:47 PM Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies 03 Dec 05 09:05 AM Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!


Etc.



You get the idea.


I have to admit, as I said at the time, that the posting of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM is an unanswerable argument.

And it does of course show all your talents at a glance---including your amazing grasp of all the issues, wonderful command of English, and subtle wit.

I can't hold a candle to you in arguments of this sort.



As Gamble Rogers said, "Ah, nostalgia".



Just one cavil.


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

As I said earlier, now's the time for you to be really creative--to let the fantasist in you take wing. I'm sure you can think of a delightfully imaginative reason why Cheney did not simply say "No sir" and let Russert go on to a completely different topic.

Who knows, maybe you can be even more creative than you were on 3 Dec 2005---though admittedly that posting would be hard to beat.

But you can give it a try--for old times' sake.

Looking forward to your typically well-argued, calm, logical response.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 09:30 PM

Dickey--


Iran predictions: the US public, having been burned severely by the despicable propaganda campaign the Bush regime used to persuade them to support the war against Iraq, will not fall for the propaganda campaign against Iran which Bush-- (and giant intellects like your good self, Dickey?)--have in mind.

No way will the US public support another blank check for Bush to use force--this time against Iran--as his judgment sees necessary.

The public has finally realized that "judgment of George W. Bush" is the ultimate oxymoron.





By the way, it's interesting that you don't like either of my denials that
Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool..."

That must mean you think Dickey is in fact an amazingly credulous right-wing fool. Since, after all, I denied the assertion that he is. And you disagreed with me.

Again, you need to remedy that reading deficiency mentioned earlier.

But I'm glad that you recognize that I do know how propaganda works. So does the Bush regime. In fact, very few don't seem to understand--only you and Teribus come to mind.

Which would explain why you don't recognize it when you see it. -- (I'm sure your inability to do so has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you voted for Mr. Bush).

But it really is a fault you should remedy ASAP if you ever hope to participate in a discussion of the Iraq war.

Otherwise you threaten to be even less worth debating than you are now.

And that prospect just staggers the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:19 PM

I never tried to make that claim.

How about an encore?

How about some Iran predictions?

Mr Kerry is stating what should be done to curtail Iranian intervention. Take careful note of the accusations he is making.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM

Did predict. Was correct. You cannot say the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

" Please tell us Mr. All Ears Dickster"

I am not the one claiming I can predict things. You made the claim, not I.

RD has to do better than refuse to make a statement.

"I predict you will never recognize propaganda when it stems from somebody you voted for."

I believe that goes for the Libs as well. Strange how they never state what they believe, only what they want others to believe.

If you have better things to do, go and do them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:00 AM

FAO - Ron Davies
"Please don't chatter on about the UN's weapons inspectors being "allowed" to do their jobs, without first giving credit to the man who got them invited back into Iraq - George W Bush. Hell would have frozen over before they would have been allowed back in if that invitation had been left up to the Government of Iraq."

FACT.

"There were plenty of unhappy Iraqis who might well have toppled him."

Eh? No Ron Saddam's regime would have killed them first.

Who were Saddam's likely successors? - His sons, as happened in Syria when old man Assad died. By the bye Ron, Saddam was a pussycat compared to either of his sons, do a bit of research, anything from any Iraqi who actually ever encountered either of Saddam's sons, particularly any Iraqi footballer or athlete.

No mention of sanctions Ron. As Guest Dickey has pointed out, and you yourself have confirmed - you have no view on anything, there is not a single thing that you believe in enough to actually state an opinion upon it. Your powers of comprehension when it comes to the english language are impaired by your own narrow minded bigotry. There is absolutely no point in entering into any discussion with you whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 03:28 PM

" Saddam been left in place"--leave it to you, Teribus, to posit a false choice. There were plenty of unhappy Iraqis who might well have toppled him. They could have--and should have--been supported by the US and UK. He might well have had severe health problems which weakened him"--and then been removed. Look at what he turned out to be when captured--an old man. UN inspections--which were proceeding--could well have kept any nascent WMD program from getting off the ground.


Pardon me if I refuse to play your little either/or game.

You'll have to do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 09:19 AM

Sorry, Terry love, which question of Dickey's have I ducked?
Love the what-ifs, by the way. Your predictions are, as always, a hoot. I've just been trawling through some of your confident prognostications and assertions pre-war - they are equally priceless. If I can be arsed I'll cut and paste a few later so we can all stand in wonder at your grasp of events.
All I can say is, thank f*ck you don't hold any office or wield any power other than on the forecourt!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 07:21 AM

Not as selective and rare as you might think TIA, if you want to, go back and have a look at them. At the time I did not believe that war was inevitable. I was however, utterly amazed that Saddam and the Ba'athist Regime in power at the time thought that they could get away with the game they had played for the previous eleven years, in the post-911 world irrespective of what France, Russia and China were telling them.

Your predictions are interesting:

"US pulls out of Iraq now = carnage.

US stays in Iraq = ?"

Is that it? Does "?" signify I don't know? So I take it that you do not find yourself in accord with the other alarmists regarding "Civil War". You have in fact no opinion on the matter, but feel obliged to tell others who have why they are wrong. That's rather a strange basis for a rational discussion.

I note that "the usual suspects" are still ducking Guest Dickey's questions. My take on the one relating to the scenario had Saddam been left in place is as follows:

**If you knew what was going to happen when Saddam was toppled, tell us what would have happened if he was left in power.**

- UN sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted about four years ago at the prompting of Iraq's major trading partners (France, Russia and China). The US and UK veto may have theoretically kept sanctions in place but nobody would have enforced them, they were always pretty ineffective anyway as shown by the UN "Oil for Food" Scandal.

- The Iraqi response to Iran's nuclear programme would further destabilise the region with the massive likelyhood of a second Iran/Iraq War sometime within the next two years.

- All WMD programmes, including nuclear, would by now have been reactivated.

- Iran and Iraq for the last four years would have been competing for "Best Sponsor" title for terrorist groups targeting Israel, all to the detriment of any peaceful solution to the problem.

- Lebanon would still be a Syrian "Colony".

- The Iraqi people (Kurds and Arab Shia) would have continued to suffer under the Arab Sunni Ba'athist Regime.

- Most on this Forum would be castigating George W Bush and his Administration for not having done anything to prevent any of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 12:01 AM

Dickey--

I predict you will never recognize propaganda when it stems from somebody you voted for.

I predict I will get tired soon of trying to teach you--and realize you are not worth my time. Unless of course it's too much fun to ridicule you--sure hope that doesn't happen--but it's something I must guard against.

Schlaf gut.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 11:59 PM

US pulls out of Iraq now = carnage.

US stays in Iraq = ?

Please tell us Mr. All Ears Dickster.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 11:47 PM

Please spew out some of your predictions. I am all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:48 PM

One little (as usual) selective quote plus a long list of your own bullet points covers everything for you doesn't it?

Why don't you and Dickey just keep on spewing. The record is clear to anyone who has bothered to pay attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM

"We predicted this shit the Friday before the game."

If you are so good at predicting things, predict what will happen if the US pulls out of Iraq now.

If you knew what was going to happen when Saddam was toppled, tell us what would have happened if he was left in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:36 AM

TIA, you mean something like this:

Teribus - 26th October 2002 - Thread BS: Bush, Iraq War Part 7:

"With respect to brush-fire wars and limited action conflicts, the United States of America has never understood Templeton's philosophy of "Hearts and Minds", and because it is not understood it can never be effectively implimented. That is why you tend to leave situations having achieved short term objectives without achieving long term aims."

On the other hand:
- We have had no "Stalingrad" scenario as predicted by Bobert.
- We have had no "Heads on Sticks" as predicted by Bobert.
- MNF casualties are not in the tens of thousands as predicted by Bobert.
- Counter to the predictions of the all-knowing anti-war brigade. The CPA was replaced by an Interim Iraqi Government and disbanded on schedule time.
- Counter to the predictions of the all-knowing anti-war brigade a draft constitution for Iraq was agreed upon.
- Counter to the predictions of the all-knowing anti-war brigade the Interim Government held elections and stood down to be replaced by the duly elected government of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 03:06 AM

Captain Ginger - 08 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM

Why restrict it to the "developed" World Carrots?
Sorry Terry, you are right. I should have written 'Name me any country which in the past decade has had mains electricity in its major cities, a functioning health service, an education system from five years to university level, adequate drinking water for nearly all of its population...'
Care to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 12:07 AM

Sorry Dickey. We aren't Monday morning quarterbacks. We predicted this shit the Friday before the game. Go back and read some late 2002/early 2003 posts. Then compare the real world of Iraq in February 2007 to the predictions (back then) of Teribus, DougR and company to those (back then)of Bobert (and many others posting here). Predictions that were relentlessly mocked by T et. al. Based on accuracy of foresight, who should the quarterback have been listening to on Sunday morning?

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

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

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

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

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

akenaton - 08 Feb 07 - 03:48 PM

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

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

akenaton - 08 Feb 07 - 04:33 PM

Which "facts" were doctored?

Captain Ginger - 08 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM

Why restrict it to the "developed" World Carrots?

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

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

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

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

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

Well said, Ake.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talking of fudging the issue and ducking things:

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

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

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

No answer to this one either - Question ducked.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"...the place is hideously factionalised,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq PM urges start to Baghdad crackdown

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to your rant:

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

True - Now who said that YOU did?

"Having completely wrecked the infrastructure,"

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

"...failed to install an effective administration"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possibly.

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

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

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

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

"..the legitimacy of Hamas,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emphasis on believe so we know you are sincere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Iraq needs the help of the Iranian army"

Brilliant.

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

I fact Iran is most of the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"welcoming"

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

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

Akenaton - Personal attack

Carrots - Meaningless tripe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A hasty retreat is long past due.

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

:0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Meeeeeeeh!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron:

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

Answer: neither of the above

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

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

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

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

Captain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dickey--

Here's a bit of unfinished business.

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

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

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



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

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

1) No, you're completely wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still flappin' about Cap'n?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ron will not state whether he believes his own assertions.

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

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

Here are your latest contradictions:

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

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

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

Your latest contradictions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would never doubt it.

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

But, Dickey and Teribus are honourable men!

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

TIA--

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


Dickey--

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

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

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

Drawing links is definitely the way propaganda works.

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

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





"I prefer facts...."

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations, you maintain your perfect record of failure.

Sleep well.

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

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

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





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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:35 PM

Dickey says:
"I prefer facts like that poll that shows the the number of people believing there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 went down during the time of the supposed propaganda campaign instead of up."
Teribus echoes:
"The fact that numbers associating Saddam Hussein with 911 reducing during your so-called "highly successful" campaign is a rather telling point against your arguement, that you have completely failed to address."

Okay, I'll address this one. Two answers--

1) Asserting that the observation that the poll numbers on belief in the Saddam-911 connection showed a decline during the propaganda campaign proves that there was no campaign could be an example of the "Post Hoc" logical fallacy. That is, temporal coincidence does not necessarily imply causation. Roosters crowing do not cause the sun to rise.

2) Let's assume that there might be a level of causation. One would still need a control group to determine whether the propaganda cmapaign was effective. For instance, if the Bush Administration had not been engaged in a propaganda campaign, the level of belief may have dropped very quickly to zero.

So, it seems silly to throw out all of the widely documented instances of propaganda based on a fallacious, or at least deficient, analysis of polling data.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM

Anyone who does not support concerted action by sovereign states against international terrorist organisations acts against the concepts of democracy
Palestine being an interesting case. Do we support the democracy or act against the terrorists?

But to return to the propaganda issue; it is a shame that neither Dickey nor Terry appears able to grasp the concept of implicit rather than explicit propaganda. To be successful and effective, propaganda has to be implicit; the best messages are put across subliminally.
By and large, politicians know that it is unwise to utter a direct and outright lie. They would rather be economical with the truth and creative with their interpretations. Mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same speech often enough, and people will believe it.
Even Bush's answer to the direct question is interesting. He won't say "no". No, he says "I cannot make that claim," as if to say he would like to, but there is, as yet, a missing piece of the jigsaw.
Dickey's obduracy I can understand, being exposed as he is solely to a supine American broadcast media, but a canny wee Scot like Terry? *sigh*. Not for nothing, it would seem, is the SI unit of density called the matelot.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:02 PM

they will get out of the way. (and likely before the next US election)
despite BUsh's SURGE (which is militarily meaningless anyway) and more likely intended to save some face for Bush as he leaves the fiasco to his successor.

Iraq will ultimately sort itself out (unfortunately at a high cost to the Iraqis themselves) it will likely split into 2or 3 regions.

Dicky and Teribus - you can argue this till the cows come home but the Bush administration propaganda campaign on Iraq has backfired.
They have no credibility anymore- weapons of mass destruction - we know they have them and we know where they are. - we will be greeted as liberators- the war will pay for itself- the insurgency is in its death throes..etc..
Their ability to predict has a poor record.

and despite your attempts to prove otherwise Cheney did continue to claim that Atta met with an Iraqi agent long after that had been discounted - and if they arent making the link then why say 'We have to take the fight to the enemy' - what did Iraq actually do to the US? HOw many Iraqis on the hijacked planes..

its hilarious to see the Neocons implode along with their plans for global hegemony forever. They come in with their arrogant shock and aw e and after 4 years of total incompetence and corruption they are now into 'surge and pray'.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 10:41 AM

Well then, thats why we disagree.

I see no reason to punish a nation of people for the crimes of a few criminals.

Why is the U.S. blocking attempts by Iran to help with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq? Seems to me the U.S. should just get out of the way and let the Middle East get on with their own business.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 09:17 AM

Dianavan Question 1:
Are you asking us to support Blackwater security in the same way that we would normally support the U.S. military?

Teribus Answer to Dianavan Question 1:
No. Although I would say that if either depended upon any kind of support from the majority of posters to this forum, then neither would last the week. The US would probably survive for at least another week while you guys woke up to realise that it is already too late - however the world would all love you.

Dianavan Question 2:
Are you asking us to support the invasion of Iraq if we support the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Teribus Answer to Dianavan Question 2:
It is very encouraging to see that you have now separated the two. Not only would I ask you to support the invasion of Iraq, I would also ask you to support all international efforts to curb Iran and North Korea.

Dianavan Question 3:
Are you asking that we support a war on terrorism if we support the capture of bin Laden?

Teribus Answer to Dianavan Question 3:
Yes. Anyone who does not support concerted action by sovereign states against international terrorist organisations acts against the concepts of democracy and rule of law and order world-wide. This an issue where people, organisations and states cannot sit on the fence, GWB was perfectly correct on this issue, "You are either with us, or against us".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 02:55 AM

Teribus - Please answer the following questions:

Are you asking us to support Blackwater security in the same way that we would normally support the U.S. military?

Are you asking us to support the invasion of Iraq if we support the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Are you asking that we support a war on terrorism if we support the capture of bin Laden?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:51 AM

Hey Ron,

Reading down through this thread the state of play at the moment is that you have:

1) Completely shifted ground three times as pointed out by Guest Dickey.

2) You have offered not one single example of what you claim as propaganda. That would support your line of reasoning. The fact that numbers associating Saddam Hussein with 911 reducing during your so-called "highly successful" campaign is a rather telling point against your arguement, that you have completely failed to address.

3) You have admitted that it is the responsibility of whoever holds the office as President of the United States of America, to address security matters in order to protect the citizens of the United States of America and the national interests of the country. Yet you castigate the man for acting on the advice given on those very topics by the Joint House Security Committee and by the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America.

4) You peddle this illusion that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were "boogie-men" created by George W Bush and his administration post-2000 election, when it is a clear matter of record that they were not. Removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime became official US foreign policy in February 1998 (IIRC), warnings about the danger of leaving the Iraq WMD problem unresolved were signalled very clearly in 1998.

Guest Dickey on the other hand has made his points very clearly and backed those points up with hard fact and examples. Guest Dickey is correct, through your arguements and line of reasoning, nobody could ever accuse you of being a rational human being with regard to this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 12:07 AM

How can you expect any rational person to believe your assertion when you don't believe it yourself?

You have provided no evidence of the propaganda campaign and you have shifted your as shown in your own words below:


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


Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM
"I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11"


From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM
As I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks---but to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

Dickey--


So sorry, you're wrong again. There has been no shift in my argument.

Feel free to misquote or misinterpret me--somehow I trust you will anyway.

But the fact remains that early in our discussion (19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM) I stated (to Teribus):


"And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about 'warning about a future possibility, not saying Saddam was responsible for 9-11'. Of course he's (Bush) not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. Nobody claims he was. But he is clearly trying to imply that if we don't do something about Saddam--real soon--there will, in the near future, be a similar situation to 9-11. But 'this time armed by Saddam', who, we have been told over and over, is likely to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

That's what I said then. That's still my argument--despite your typically specious- (look it up)- and foolish allegations.

And that Bush quote from the 2003 State of the Union speech is a perfect example of the propaganda campaign--which neither you nor Teribus have produced a scintilla- (look it up)- of evidence to refute.

And please don't bother us with your incredibly feeble "Clinton made me" excuse. Who invaded Iraq? Somehow I don't think it was Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:11 PM

Books make money do they not?

There are books pro and con on everything you can think of, written precisely to sell.

Newspapers, radio and TV need to make money too so they gravitate to the expose and if it bleeds it leads philosophy to get the snatch the biggest audience from the others so it becomes a contest to see who can be the most negative. So who reports the good news?

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

Of course when Ron couldn't argue his way out of that fact even with his obligatory personal attacks, he shifts his argument that it was about convincing the public that Saddam might give WMDs to terrorists. The previous administration did that without any help from George. The Intel and personnel carried over from the Clinton administration had everybody convinced that Saddam had WMDs.

< a href="http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/25/wmd-intel-pre-dated-bush/">WMD Intel pre-dated Bush
"This was the consensus before Bush took office, before Scooter Libby assumed his post and before Judith Miller did most of the reporting for which she is now, uniquely, criticized. It was based on reporting by a large of number of journalists who in turn based their stories on the judgments of international intelligence analysts, Clinton officials and weapons inspectors. As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived...
..The Times was not alone, of course. On Jan. 29, 2001, The Post editorialized that "of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous — or more urgent — than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.""

Go plunk your money down on this one and enrich the reporter for the currently anti-bush Washington Post that wrote it.

Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine
"With a slew of simultaneous scandals to his credit and numerous ongoing investigations pending, President Clinton has been bombarded by the media in a fashion not seen since the last days of the Nixon administration. Despite this unwanted attention, Clinton has managed to maintain lofty approval ratings and successfully deflect even the most ardent attacks. How does he do it? This question is answered in full in Spin Cycle: Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine, an engrossing, back room look at how news is created and packaged in the White House and the methods used to distribute it to the public. In painting a detailed picture of the hand-to-hand combat known as a press conference, Kurtz shows how the use of controlled leaks, meticulously worded briefs, and the outright avoidance of certain questions allows the White House to control the scope and content of the stories that make it to the front page and the nightly network news. As Kurtz makes clear, the president and First Lady are convinced that the media are out to get them, while the journalists covering the White House are constantly frustrated at the stonewalling and the lack of cooperation they encounter while trying to do their jobs. In the middle is White House press secretary Mike McCurry, a master at defusing volatile situations and walking the fine line with the press. Though less paranoid and cynical of the media than Clinton, he often finds himself on both ends of personal attacks and vendettas that veer far outside the arena of objective reporting. The anecdotes and carefully buried information Kurtz has uncovered give Spin Cycle a brisk pace, along with ample invaluable information that cuts to the core of this age of media overkill. The author of Hot Air and Media Circus and a longtime media reporter for the Washington Post, Kurtz is uniquely qualified to report on the status of news dissemination in the United States."

And if you think I am all pro Bush your are prone to propaganda yourself. I think the Reagan, Bush one, Clinton and Bush 2 all screwed this one up. Bush can say that he and his father were for Saddam before they were against them.

Winning this war by beating up on the president is like trying to cure cancer by beating up on the patient for smoking.

What matters is what is and no one here has the slightest idea of what the future consequences might be from leaving Iraq in turmoil nor do they care. All they want is to crucify Bush so they can feel better.

Politicians want to to sign something that says they are now against the war and against the surge to cleanse themselves for the next election cycle while at the same time confirming and sending a General off to command the troop surge.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 11:13 AM

Dickey says "So far you have provided zero evidence that there was a propaganda campaign."

It would take far to long to present all of the evidence in this thread. Many snippets have been presented in this and other threads, but forget that, it has been thoroughly documented by others more knowledgeable than any of us.

If you truly want to see the evidence, you have about 48 books to read.

(Search results from Amazon for "Bush +Iraq +propaganda").

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:04 AM

Let's just say I have a problem seeing things that don't exist like the Emperors new clothes.

So far you have provided zero evidence that there was a propaganda campaign.

You absolutely refuse to say what you believe which indicates to any rational person that you do not believe your assertions yourself but you attack others who do not believe what you do not believe.

You contradict yourself, change the criteria on what is considered evidence and still you cannot make your case so you have to resort to personal attacks.

I think you are the one doing the boring.

However your are welcome to your opinions and I won't stoop to your level desperate of personal attacks.

You are still a nice guy. Just a little hyperactive in the conspiracy department.

If Bush succeeds in spite of all the people that don't want him to succeed, you will calm down and look for a different windmill to joust with.

I wonder why Gen. David Petraeus with his plan to win with a troop surge was confirmed unanimously while at the same time the troop surge is being condemned in Congress?

They are sending this man on a mission while at the same time condemning the mission. Sounds like a intellectually superior plan to me.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate today unanimously confirmed Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, an architect of President Bush's policy of adding U.S. troops to the forces already in Iraq, as commander of U.S. and allied forces there.

The vote was 81 to 0.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: DougR
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:48 PM

Ron, you are a gem. So tactful. Did you come by this talent naturally, or is it something that you were taught?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 11:08 PM

Dickey--

You still have that old problem with reading and comprehension.

You can link Saddam to 9-11 without claiming directly that he was responsible for 9-11. This is exactly what the Bush regime sought to do--and did masterfully. I have told you this before--at least starting 20 Jan 2007 1:00 PM, and again 21 Jan 2007 11:38 AM. Etc.
Your inability to understand is getting just a bit boring.

Propaganda is often more effective when subtle--rather than the sledgehammer approach, which seems to be the only one you have facility to recognize.

If you can't tell the difference between linking Saddam to 9-11 and stating baldly that he caused the 9-11 attacks, you need to cultivate the ability to read more carefully--and possibly even understand what you read. That at least should be your goal--and you have quite a way to go to attain it.

Otherwise, you will continue to be a very easy mark for propaganda---unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:49 PM

teribus -

Are you asking us to support Blackwater security in the same way that we would normally support the U.S. military?

Are you asking us to support the invasion of Iraq if we support the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Are you asking that we support a war on terrorism if we support the capture of bin Laden?

To take the very real concerns of citizens and twist them to meet his own agenda, is criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

If something is anticipated and acted on, it is a propaganda campaign and a scare tactic.

If something is not anticipated and acted on, it is a miserable failure.

Please describe a rational person.

I do not believe a rational person could conclude that Bush was trying to convince people there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 which was your original accusation made on:

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

Now, after you failed to prove that and backtracked by denying you ever made that assertion by saying falsely:

Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM
"I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11"

And changing the assertion to:

From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM

As I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks---but to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.

I believe a rational person would want the US government to anticipate possible security threats and take steps to prevent them.

I also believe a rational person would not need to constantly change his assertions and change his requirements on what would constitute proof in order to keep their argument viable and falsely claim "you have provided zero evidence".

I also believe a rational person could recognize the fact that if the number of people that believed there was a connection was decreasing while the alleged campaign was underway could still claim "it was brilliantly successful"

I don't believe that any rational person could believe that after years (going back before Bush) of congress men, Military men etc issuing dire warnings that Saddam had WMD's and we must do something about it, could claim that "The regime, with no proof whatsoever, sought to make the case in the public mind that Saddam had WMD with which he would supply the next attackers on the US." Examples:

Bill Clinton 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"


I believe a rational person could state what he believes and answer questions directly without personal attacks on people that disagree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:46 AM

"responsibility"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM

Dickey---

Obviously every US president has the responsbility to look out for the security of the US to the best of his ability. But that does not give him carte blanche to engage in a despicable propaganda campaign with the goal of panicking the country into supporting his invasion of another country. As I have said before, I supported the attack on the Taliban and the hunting of Osama (now Osama bin Forgotten). But the attack on Iraq was made for Bush's own goals--and not those of the US.

And the dishonest selling of the Iraq war to the public on the basis of fear--with no evidence supporting the necessity of the invasion--is revolting and inexcusable.

As I have said before, for starting an unnecessary war of choice, and engaging in a vile propaganda campaign to convince the US public to support the invasion, Bush can be lumped with Hitler.

And neither you nor Teribus have produced one iota of evidence that the propaganda campaign did not occur.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 09:20 AM

Dickey--

1) I wish you good luck with your sax.

2) It is quite clear to any rational person that there was a propaganda campaign by the Bush administration to persuade the US public that the next terrorists would be supplied by Saddam with WMD. If the US public believed that Saddam had caused 9-11, so much the better for Bush's campaign--but that was not necessary for Bush's purposes.

All that was needed was to convince the public that there were links between terrorists who would attack the US in the future--(hence the constant reiteration by Bush of the 9-11 mantra--constant referral to the attacks)--and mention of Saddam. The campaign sought--and was brilliantly successful in this--to associate Saddam and 9-11 in the minds of the US public--without making the blatant statement that Saddam had caused 9-11.   The regime, with no proof whatsoever, sought to make the case in the public mind that Saddam had WMD with which he would supply the next attackers on the US.

Do you believe this--yes or no?

If not, specifically what part do you not believe?


You have supplied precisely zero evidence against this charge.




As I said before, Goebbels would have been proud of the Bush accomplishment in propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:41 AM

Ron,

It's nice to see that you have completely changed you position on the Saddam/911 thing. You have finally taken onboard what the Joint House Security Committee and combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America have been saying for the last nine years.

But one, fairly reasonable and direct, question of Guest Dickey's that you have completely side-stepped and really should be answered by yourself, relates to one of the main responsibilities of anyone holding the office of the President of the United States of America.

Should the President of the USA act in order to preserve the security of the United States of America if advised of what is perceived to be a plausible and credible external threat?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 06:31 AM

GUEST,Frank Hamilton. Having read through your post of 28 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM, I must tell you that you have left me totally unconvinced. The post contains no substance to refute any of the points that I have previously made, like Ron Davies, you attribute comments and positions to me that I have never advocated.

Frank, have you ever worked in Vietnam? I have not, but I have been responsible for supplying equipment required for use in Vietnam. One of the requirements that posed some problems was that in the post-Vietnam War era, we had to go over ever piece of equipment, ever spare part, all the maintenance and operations manuals and remove any reference to the United States of America - hard thing to do with equipment used for the offshore oil industry.

Frank have you read any of Osama Bin Laden's threats, have you compared the messages pre & post 911. Obviously from your post you have not. Biggest difference now is that if not living deep in the bowels of the earth, hidden from sight, then Osama Bin Laden is dead, nobody has heard from him in a long, long time, and his side-kick is now reduced to threatening his fellow muslims. All this because at the time of the 11th of September attacks in 2001, the United States of America had a President who was not afraid to act.

The UNSCOM weapons inspectors were advised to leave Iraq in December 1998 by President Bill Clinton's Administration. By their own reports to the Security Council, the UNSCOM Inspectors stated that due to obstruction and lack of co-operation on the part of the Iraq Government they could not perform their task. Having suceeded in getting the inspectors to withdraw, Bill Clinton, without going to the United Nations, or to Congress, launched an attack upon Iraq. Didn't hear you complain and carp about that Frank, Ron, Akenaton, dianavan, Arne, et al. The justification for those attacks, in a campaign known as "Desert Fox", was that Saddam had not complied with the Safwan ceasefire terms imposed by the UN and agreed to by the Iraqi Government.

Reality check, for the citizens of the United States of America. Irrespective of what any of you perceive to be the rights and wrongs of the matter, your country is now involved in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Your troops deserve and should get your whole-hearted support. I can not think of any worse way for the prospective Democratic Presidential candidates (the prospective Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces of the US) to enter the forthcoming election with a declared and widely publicised platform of hamstringing the armed forces of the United States of America, financially and in terms of troop numbers, while those forces are actively engaged in combat.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 02:54 AM

Erik Prince (Blackwater) stated, "The "total force" refers to all resources available to be used in the nation's defense. Blackwater considers itself a partner to the DoD and all government agencies, and we stand ready to provide surge capacity, training, security and operational services in various areas at their request."

I wondered where Bush got the term, 'surge'!

These so-called Christians are robbing the U.S. treasury.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Jan 07 - 01:08 AM

Dickey,
Congrats on the sax. I've picked up some great brass instruments on ebay for far less than they were worth. On the finger thing -- I got nerve damage in my right middle finger in an accident, and almost quit playing stringed instrumets, but then strapped on a finger pick, and it makes it all good again. So, good luck with the sax, but don't quit on the strings if you like 'em at all.

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

The above was posted by me.

By the way Ron, I just snagged a tenor sax on Ebay.

I don't know a damned thing about it but I have been dreaming about playing a sax for years. I like the old big band sounds and early rock and roll.

I tried playing bluegrass with stringed instruments and bombed out. Due to an accident my left middle finger is blunt on the end. It is too wide to fit betweenteh strings to make a chord and it is sensitive on the end and the strings hurt.

Wish me luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:42 PM

You are welcome Ron.

Rd's response to a three part yes or no question:

"THAT was the propaganda campaign."

Again, I know you can read much better than I can so these should be very easy to answer yes or no:

Do you believe that it was totally impossible for Saddam to so, that Bush knew that it was impossible and that to draw possible scenarios like this and prepare for them is not the duty of the government.


Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM
"I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11"

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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM

Dickey----


And he and his "team" did their persuading by many connections of Saddam with 9-11. Some of which we have detailed--more you can get by checking the earlier threads on the topic. Which you should do before favoring us with any more of your half-baked absurdities.

Thank you so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:17 PM

Dickey--

Do you believe that the Bush regime, in the period summer 2002 to March 2003, wanted to persuade the US public to support its planned Iraq invasion---and tried to do this by convincing the US public that the next terrorists would be supplied with WMD---by Saddam?

Yes or no?

THAT was the propaganda campaign.

You're having that chronic problem of yours about careless reading again. I have more than once pointed out that nobody is alleging Bush was trying to convince the public that Saddam had caused 9-11. But he damn sure was trying to panic the public on the basis of a threatened new attack----as I have explained more than once.

And you have produced no counter-evidence. The Bush-Blair press conference you love so much is actually evidence AGAINST your position.

Context counts.

And if you don't learn that soon, you will prove you are a worthless debater.

Unsurprisingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

Dear Ron:

"And so far, you are--a perfect illustration of "ignorance is bliss"."

I would like to know what you are the perfect illustration of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 09:19 PM

So much for the kindness, courtesy and respect that your superior intellect affords you.

I have cited four things.

Bush's statement that he could not say there was a connection.

The results of the polls.

Your own statement that he did not say there was a connection.

Reports from other sources that there was a connection.

Your evidence consists of you own translation of what was said. Your reading between the lines.

Plus you refuse to answer the hard questions. You just continue to discredit me in an effort to prove your assertion.

If your assertion was so credible, it would not have to be accompanied by your personal attacks on me.

You refuse to answer the question about the statement that you claim undercuts and disqualifies my example that you claimed did not exist. If that statement by Blair was erroneous. Please state directly if that it was an impossible scenario and therefore erroneous.

Someone of superior intellect could answer that in a heartbeat so I know you can.

And while you are demonstrating your superior intellect, Tell me why the number of people convinced that there was a connection decreased during the time of your alleged propaganda campaign.

Now you are backing out of your assertion of a propaganda campaign draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam because you have not been able to support it except with personal insults and your claim of superior intellect.

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

Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM "I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks"

You are shifting your assertion to there was a propaganda campaign "to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.",

And you claim that I "have provided precisely zero evidence that the Bush regime did not do this"

Well of course I haven't because you never requested it before.

Before we go down this alternate garden path of yours you need to first to confirm that you believe that it was totally impossible for Saddam to so, that Bush knew that it was impossible and that to draw possible scenarios like this ansd prepare for them is not the duty of the government.

I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that an intellectually superior person can state what they believe without hesitation so please demonstrate this ability.

And no, I am not an easily lead sheep. Therefore I am able to disagree with your shifting assertions, constant backpeddaling and ever changing requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 04:40 PM

Frank, sorry to nitpick with an otherwise excellent post, but while the letters of Osama bin Laden..states...the only reason to attack the US is because of American troops on "Holy soil" is true, but ...If we were to leave Iraq, Al-Qaeda could claim victory and not bother with America. isn't quite the case.
As far as Bin Laden is concerned, 'Holy Soil' means Saudi Arabia; that was the causus bellum on 9/11. That, too, is why the majority of the hijackers were Saudis.
However, Al-Queda presents in real terms a fairly minor threat to the US - and certainly a lesser one than the various far-right loony-tunes and fruitcakes in the militias and survivalist cults looking out for the black helicopters. Remember Oklahoma...

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:46 PM

Dickey--

I am a bit exasperated with sheep who don't recognize a propaganda campaign when it's obvious. If the shoe fits........   And so far, it seems to be a wonderfully snug fit for you.

As I said, the Bush regime's goal was not to allege that Saddam caused the 11 Sept 2001 attacks---but to convince the US public that Saddam would link up with the next attackers--and would supply them with WMD.

And you have provided precisely zero evidence that the Bush regime did not do this---and have showed amazing ignorance of how propaganda works--while we have cited precise specifics--from the 2003 State of the Union speech--AND the very press conference you yourself have cited--- among others--of exactly how Bush did this.

If you want more specifics, you can, as I said, examine the earlier threads which have dealt with this topic.

If you do not do so, I can only conclude that you prefer to remain ignorant. In a Bush supporter, this is not surprising.

I note with interest that you have no counter to my point that the "denial" in the press conference you love so much is fatally undercut by what follows immediately.

If you don't recognize that context matters, you will remain forever ignorant---and easy prey for any propaganda campaign.

And so far, you are--a perfect illustration of "ignorance is bliss".

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM

Oncde again Teribus is misinformed and his attribution to Smith is risible. His answers?

"- The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again."

The US has no credibility in the world now. The rest of the world thinks that Bush's policy is insane. The US has no leadship ability now and won't as long as they remain in Iraq or attempt to aid Israel in nuking Iran.

"- Your "professional", volunteer armed forces will never again trust the population or government."

The Blackwater armed mercenary volunteers are what is left of the efficacy of the US military in Iraq. They have one of the largest bases there. They are being lead by a Christian right-wing-nut named Erik Prince who has funded James Dobson's idiotic Focus on the Family. They are out-of-control torturers in Abu Graibh and other centers. Bush will not stop at 20,000 but doesn't think he needs them as long as Blackwater continues.

I'm reminded of Teribus's ridiculous post about the UN resolution and the idea that Sadam expelled Scott Ritter and the UNSCOM team. This was patently wrong and Republican propaganda that added to the lies of the Bush Administration's other flights of fancy.

"It took the US military over twenty years to recover from the defeat suffered at the hands of the Vietcong, they will not recover from the defeat against the insurgents in Iraq inflicted upon them by their own politicians and population."

It certainly did not take twenty years for American industry to find its way into Vietnam.
This is a fallacy. The reason the US was "defeated" was because there was no support for a losing proposition by Johnson and furthur aggravated by Nixon.


"- Emboldened by your defeat in Iraq, the battle against the USA, declared by Al-Qaeda way back in the early 1990's will arrive at your doorstep. "

Obviously Teribus has not bothered to read the letters of Osama bin Laden which states unequivocally the fact that the only reason to attack the US is because of American troops on "Holy soil". If we were to leave Iraq, Al-Qaeda could claim victory and not bother with America. The idea that we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here is a misleading bromide that has no basis in fact.


" No-one will trust the United States to have the integrity to live up to it's commitments."

Wake up Teribus. This is the case right now. Bush has destroyed our integrity.

"- The United Nations will become even less significant than it is today. Like it's predecessor, "The League of Nations", without a powerful and forthright United States of America the UN will become equally irrelevant."

You have to remember if you are a student of American history is that it was the Conservatives that torpedoed the "League of Nations". Wilson couldn't get it passed so it never really existed. The UN is viable now and will be in the future if the Bush Administration doesn't destroy it with more John Boltons.

In short, Teribus, your pronouncements have no credible evidence to back them up.

Also, the Democratic Party was elected in the US to stop the debacle in Iraq. They are beginning to hear from its base, now, and expose the hypocrisy of Ram Imanuel and his ilk.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

Ron:

Thank you for your courteous response, sincerely.

My point is that this connection accusation has been made and repeated ad nauseam so that some people are convinced that there was a propaganda campaign.

However I do not believe that there was a propaganda campaign. I believe the propaganda was that there was a propaganda campaign.

I know that there were people unassociated with the administration claiming there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Then others arguing that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. All the while the administration was maintaining that there was a connection between Saddam and terrorism and we need to fight terrorism and those that support it. Bush, when asked directly if Saddam had anything to do with terrorism said he could not say that.

I have not heard many people saying Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. The big beef was that war is wrong under any circumstances. That argument has lead to the current Bush lied campaign with any kind of accusation, founded, unfounded, provable or not provable, hurled at Bush.

I personally do not see any evidence that Bush Lied, There were mistakes made in intelligence but they were no worse than the mistakes from the previous administration. A lot of the intelligence was inherited by Bush. As far as I can see, the Clinton administration and Congress intelligence failures and mistakes were as much at fault as the Bush administration's and Congress's intelligence failures and mistakes and. However some in congress try to distance them selves from their errors in judgment and blame everything on Bush. They also try to blame Bush for their mistakes in order to be elected or re elected.

The single fact that so many people believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 right after 9/11 and that number declined over the years while this alleged propaganda campaign was under way is enough to show me that there was no campaign.

However you are entitled to your opinions. To me you are just someone who disagrees with me, not an enemy. But to me it seems that to you consider me to be your enemy because I do not agree with you and as such must be derided and ridiculed so as to make your opinion more credible.

I say the credibility of a person can be determined the respect they show for other people.

It seems to me that civilization is the respect people have for each other and their willingness to cooperate with each other for the common good.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM

Dickey--

Added to which, the other point you keep missing is that none of us are alleging that Mr Bush claimed that Saddam was responsible for the 11 Sept 2001 attacks. His goal, however, was to associate Saddam with those attacks--and to convince his audience that if nothing was done about Saddam, we faced a similar attack--but this time with WMD---supplied by Saddam.

The process of convincing the US public of this was the propaganda campaign-----and it was brilliantly successful.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

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

Dickey--

Don't worry--intellectual superiority is something of which I will never accuse Mr. Bush.

I'm sorry to say that your attitude conveys one of two things--incredible garden variety ignorance, particularly of the way propaganda works---or wilful ignorance--that you refuse to see it right in front of your face.

The example I gave, with the contrasting "denials" is precisely analogous to the "denial" given by Bush and Blair. In both cases, the supposed "denial" ("I can't make that claim") becomes worthless, when placed in the context what followed directly.

If that is not true, please explain why it is not.

If you can't or refuse to see that, talking with you is totally worthless.

Your next step should be a visit to your local libarary to find out how propaganda works--at this point you seem to be abysmally ignorant on that score--even though I have just given you a sterling example of it--in the two "denials". No wonder you support Mr. Bush--he counted on giant intellects like yourself in selling the war---and he was not disappointed.

The vast majority of the rest of the world realized what Mr Bush was doing---too bad you didn't.

Added to which, as I've pointed out more than once--we have dealt with the propaganda campaign---in exhaustive (and exhausting?) depth- on Mudcat---more than a year ago. You will find that debate very easily if you make the effort to do so. And we have told you already where to find it.

Therefore, this is an old and tired topic. Please have the goodness to not bring it up again until at least you have examined what we have already said last year--discussed in great detail.

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

I had already posted the link when you told me it was a non-existent site.

First on 1/25/07 at 11:45 not as clicky, then again at 1/25/07 11:46 as clicky.

It has been there all along my good fella.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 01:32 AM

RD's selective cut and paste:

Blair continues (31 Jan 2003) : "The one thing I would say, however, is that I've absolutely no doubt that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after Sept 11? We know that these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."

The full paragraph unedited by RD:

"That answers your question. The one thing I would say, however, is I've absolutely no doubt at all that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after September the 11th? We know that these terrorists networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction. And we know also that they will do whatever they can to acquire the most deadly weaponry they can. And that's why it's important to deal with these issues together."

Get on his case Captain Ginger. Tell him to quit using those big tobacco company tactics.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM

yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 07:46 PM

Akenaton, what is wrong? Chapter and verse please c/w substantive reference.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:10 PM

You must know which is the stronger deial. You wrote them in attempt to put words in the mouths of others. Please, you tell us kind superior intelectual.

Again you have nothing but rudeness and disrespect to offer in place of facts. Is this a trait if intellectual superiors? Are all Republicans mean spirited like you?

RD: "yours is not clear." "Under any circumstances, these answers are remarkable for their brevity and directness. No politician answers clearly and in just one sentence. Yet on this crucial matter, Bush and Blair did just that."

"and should know better than to joust with his clear intellectual superiors" evidently RD is his own greatest admirer. Yet this intellectual superior still refuses to answer questions"

I have asked you several times:

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Intelectual superiors lik to say thing like "There has been a lot of information come forth about forewarnings which were ignored by the government." But when the governmnet dos so they are accused by intellectual superiors of using scare tactics and propaganda.

Do you deny that George Bush said "I can't make that claim" when asked if there was a connection?

And you have not explained why the percentage of Americans that believed there was a connection dropped from a period that began just after 9/11 thru your alleged propaganda campaign.

Re: Blairs statement that you claim disqualifiys my emaple:
Do you believe that there was no possibility that "these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."?

Yes or No

Rather than answer anything, you claim intellectual superiority and dismiss anything contrary to your false allegations.

Sounds like the same activity you are accusing Bush of.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 09:55 AM

"You did not ask for an entire manuscript". Quite right. But there is such a thing as context. I did ask for a CLEAR quote. In context, which I'm very sorry to tell you, does matter, yours is not clear.

By way of illustration:

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

1) No, you're completely wrong.

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



Now, Dickey, please tell me. Which of the above is the stronger denial?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 08:52 AM

It may be a matter of record,but it was all wrong.

And please don't talk about hindsite, as I was against this madness even before Bush and Blair had privately decided to start a war, which would kill hundreds of thousands and leave us more exposed to terrorism than we had been.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 05:54 AM

....." If Saddam had no link to 9/11 why are we about to launch a pre-emptive illegal and very costly war against him"....Ake

The answer to that question Akenaton you will find in the text of the 2002 State of The Union Address.

The answere to that question Akenaton you will find in the text of a 1998 (17th February IIRC) Bill Clinton speech of quoted in a post of mine in this thread.

Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, the Taleban, Afghanistan - All connected to the 11th September, 2001 attacks on the United States of America.

Saddam Hussein, Iraq, WMD weapons and development programmes, sponsorship of international terrorist groups - All connected to evaluation of greatest potential threat to the United States of America, the national interersts of the United States of America, the allies of the United States of America and the interests of the allies of the United States of America.

This threat was clearly identified in 1998, it was further re-evaluated in 2001 after 911 and was reconfirmed as being potentially the greatest threat. The aforementioned evaluations were not carried out by any neo-con think-tank, they were not carried out by President G W Bush or any member of his administration, they were carried out by the US Joint House Security Committee and by the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America. Those evaluations were then presented to the President and his Administration for consideration and action. The action taken was to go the United Nations, which as usual failed.

All this is a matter of record.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 03:05 AM

Teribus.. the statements from Blair and Bush Jan 31 2003, pose more questions than they answer.

Both had been implying for months that there was in fact some tenuous connection..The damage to rational analysis of the situation had already been done.

When it became clear that they could continue the illusion no further they were forced to confirm that there was no link.
The decicion to go to war had been taken almost a year perviously so it did no harm to their cause to tell the truth in 2003.

However many asked themselves at the time....." If Saddam had no link to 9/11 why are we about to launch a pre-emptive illegal and very costly war against him....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:42 AM

Dear Ron:

You are asserting that there was no possibility that "these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."?

I have asked you several times:

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Why do you avoid that one by asserting I did not answer something?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:33 AM

Tia:

First you say "Please go to Fox News online (or somesuch if it exists) and pose the same question." and "Even there, you may not get truthful answers "

"Now you say Hi Dickey. Trust me, the site exists"

If you know where it is then post something from there that proves something, whatever it is you want to prove, and provide a link.

Even then what would it prove if it is not truthful?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 02:18 AM

Dear Ron: Again you choose to disqualify the answer by changing your criteria and with personal insults.

The Criteria were:

Precisely which statement--during that period--do you think constitutes a clear declaration by the Bush regime that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11?

Please give the direct quote--specifying your source, the speaker, the date and the occasion.
1) clear
2) a statement by a Bush spokesman disavowing any link between Saddam and 9-11, and
3) within the period in question.

You did not ask for an entire manuscript, only a quote "one quote DURING THAT PERIOD" with extra emphasis on the time period and you got it.

You said It does not exist. "quotes meeting the above criteria don't exist"

Now you deny It when I prove it does exist. Which of the above criteria does it not meet?

Instead of facts you have nothing but rudeness, insults and personal attacks to rely on. Quite unbecoming and mean spirited for an intelligent person like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM

Dickey--

Well, well. Captain Ginger has nailed you---"partial quote..." And his parallel of your attitude with the tobacco companies' defense is also dead on.

You say "Here's the key portion. Correction: Here's the part YOU chose.

Somehow you left the context out--now I wonder why you would do that. It couldn't be since it destroys your argument-- yet again. Surely not.

Have you been taking lessons from Teribus? When I quote one sentence, I am perfectly fine with having the context quoted. Teribus often obliges--but then winds up shooting himself in the foot. Don't know why that happens--gun keeps going off, I suppose.

At any rate, neither you nor Teribus seem to believe in including the context when you quote-----and for good reason--since it regularly undermines what you claim.

I checked your press conference of 31 Jan 2003. And sure enough, your "clear statement" is muddied--in the very next paragraph. Do you think we do no checking?

Tony Blair says "That answers your question". But then he goes on to pollute the water--badly--a la Cheney on 8 Sept 2002.

(Ask your companion in self-delusion, Teribus about that one. It's Teribus' pride and joy---but only the first sentence. The rest he prefers to ignore.)

But I digress. Just a trip down memory lane--about a year ago.

Blair continues (31 Jan 2003) : "The one thing I would say, however, is that I've absolutely no doubt that unless we deal with both of these threats, they will come together in a deadly form. Because, you know, what do we know after Sept 11? We know that these terrorist networks would use any means they can to cause maximum death and destruction."

He states there is "no doubt" that Saddam--clearly designated as a threat early in the press conference--and terrorists of the 11 Sept 2001 variety "will" come together.

From my posting of 19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM: "And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about 'warning about a future possibility, not saying Saddam was responsible for 9-11'. Of course he's not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. No one claims that he was. But he is clearly trying to imply that if we don't do something about Saddam--real soon--there will, in the near future, be a situation like 9-11. But "this time armed by Saddam". Who, we have been told over and over, is likely to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That is----a 9-11 situation--but with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

"It's a message calculated to raise deep fears in his audience--- and panic them into supporting his Iraq invasion".


And so is this press conference--both what Bush says and what Blair says----if you read the entire transcript. Which you obviously did not plan on anybody doing.

The clear message is that Saddam may not have been directly responsible for 11 Sept 2001--but he is very likely to team up with the next terrorists who attack us-----with his WMD.

He, (Bush) (and Blair too) clearly links Saddam with 11 Sept 2001 in the minds of his listeners---which is his goal.

Fits perfectly into the propaganda campaign.

Calculated to raise deep fears.

Tell me why it is not.







Answer: no, your quote, I'm sorry to say, fails miserably-- (as usual)-- to carry out your assignment.

But at least you've learned to read sufficiently that you now realize what period we are speaking of. This is big progress. Well done, good job.


Face it, Dickey: the propaganda campaign from summer 2002 to March 2003 is a fact, not a theory.



This is an extremely dead horse. Teribus beat it to death mercilessly about a year ago--even though we tried to tell him it was already dead. Your continuing to beat it is unfortunately not going to bring it back to life any time soon.

Hope you have a good life preserver---sounds like you're still drowning in the river of denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:29 PM

I fear Dickey is being deliberately disingenuous. As such, there's little point in trying to argue on matters of fact because, like Terry, he's a past master at the selective cut and paste and the partial quote
Both of them use very similar tactics to the tobacco companies when faced with overwhelming evidence that smoking kills. Do a comparison - it's quite uncanny!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:03 PM

so why does Bush say we have to take the fight to the enemy?
(how many IRaqis were on the hijacked planes?)

Cheney continued, well into the Iraq war, to talk about the long-discredited meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

200 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM

I would like to say

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM

I cannot make the claim that Dickey is incredibly dense on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM

Thanks for your kindly respectful response Ron. It seems that if your facts were facts, they would not need to be bolstered by rude comments.

78% were convinced of the connection on 9/13/01, two days after the attack.

By 8/11/03, the time that you claim there was a sucessfull propaganda campaign to convince the American people there was a connection, the number of people that were convinced that there was a connection had dropped by at least 8%

So can you explain why the number of people that were convinced of the connection decreased during this alleged propaganda campaign while you claim it was increased my the campaign?

And please, I know you are intelligent enough to respond without the rudeness. I think you will agree that facts can stand on their own and they do not need any anti-social enhancements.

Maybe this meets you strict criteria for "a clear declaration by the Bush regime":

The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:


[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

Under any circumstances, these answers are remarkable for their brevity and directness. No politician answers clearly and in just one sentence. Yet on this crucial matter, Bush and Blair did just that.

Or this by a crtitc of the Bush Administration:

The problem is, Saddam had nothing to do with the events that occurred on that fateful day in September. Bush himself admitted to that. On   Jan. 31, 2003 he was questioned by Adam Boulton of Sky News (London). Boulton asked, "One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? Bush replied, "I can't make that claim." Blair said, "That answers your question."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM

Hi Dickey. Trust me, the site exists, and the information there is provided by Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska). You can decide for yourself whether he is providing correct or incorrect accounts of the time period in question (but only if you read *his* words...not asking you to trust mine).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:03 AM

The reason could well be dianavan that having heard, or read, and understood what was actually said, we have reached the same conclusion. As opposed to others like yourself, Arne and Ron, who rely on second-hand reports of what was said and on others opinions on what has been said. Your bias and hatred of the current President and his Administration ensures that any objectivity that you may have possessed has gone out the window and that you are fully prepared to believe any idiotic theory that casts the current President and his Administration in a bad light.

Ron, clear unequivocal statements relating to the fact that there was no connection between the attacks of 11th September, 2001 and Saddam Hussein/Iraq Government were broadcast in the USA on MSM during the period you stipulate. Now once again I ask give me ONE, just one instance where either the President, or any member of his Administration state that there was a connection in the period 11th September, 2001 to present day.

Now a reality check for both of you, all of which is a matter of record that you both individually really should check for yourselves and come to terms with:

- Iraq was identified as posing a potential threat to the United States of America in 1998, by the Clinton Administration and their security advisors, it was not dreamt up by GWB post-911.

- Neither GWB, Blair, or any members of eithers government invented information with regard to Iraq's WMD, or WMD programmes. All that information, universally accepted and believed at the time, came from the United Nations.

- The UN backed operations against Al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan were a direct result of attacks made by Al-Qaeda on the United States of America in 2001.

- The US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 has and never has had anything to do with 911, or Osama Bin Laden. Direct intervention in Iraq was centred around the removal of what had been seen by the Joint House Security Committee, and the Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America, as the greatest potential threat to the country.

- Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in power in Iraq were given every opportunity to put matters to rights. They mistakenly believed that the international stance adopted by its major trading partners (France, Russia, China and Germany) would deter the US, they thought that they could brazen it out - They were badly mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:32 AM

Why do GUEST, GUEST DICKEY, and teribus all say the same things?

I'm outa here.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:06 AM

Dickey--the propaganda campaign was from about summer 2002 to the actual invasion--in March 2003. I wonder why. Perhaps because it was a campaign to to persuade the US public to back Bush's invasion. So once the public, having bought the snake oil the Bush regime was selling,   let said regime cow Congress into using whatever force Bush felt was necessary--and the invasion had occurred, the campaign was ipso facto successful---and therefore over. They had in fact achieved their goal of convincing the public to back the invasion they had planned.

Duh.

Therefore your August 2003 poll is not germane. So your conclusion fails. Situation normal.

However, congratulations, you have mastered "blue clicky" technology.



"Would you say that their statements (Bush et al.) that there was no connection constitute one quote DURING THAT PERIOD to the contrary?"

Well, let's see. The period in question, as I've mentioned more than once---and it still does not seem to have penetrated your skull-- is summer 2002 to March 2003.
Precisely which statement--during that period--do you think constitutes a clear declaration by the Bush regime that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11?

Please give the direct quote--specifying your source, the speaker, the date and the occasion.

So far you have favored us with a wealth--of irrelevancies---most outside the period in question and none meeting the criteria.

Perhaps you're still confused.

Try again.

Keep in mind it may not be easy--possibly since quotes meeting the above criteria don't exist.

Remember it has to be:
1) clear
2) a statement by a Bush spokesman disavowing any link between Saddam and 9-11, and 3) within the period in question.

But thanks so much for trying.

And have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:02 PM

To whom it may concern:

I found something interesting on the Washington Post website. A similar poll was conducted four times and the number of that believed the connection decreased.

               --------Likely------- -------Not Likely------   No
               NET   Very   Somewhat NET   Not very   At all opin.
8/11/03         69    32       37      28      15       12      3
2/6/03          72    34       38      25      16         9      3
10/24/02       71    34       37      25      16         9      4
9/13/01         78    34       44      12       9         3      9

The SOU address in question was January 28, 2003 but the percentage of people that believed there was a connection went up only 1% right after that. Then it dropped 3% during the time that the alleged propaganda campaign was underway.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:51 PM

TIA:

So I am supposed to go to a site that may or may not exist to possibly get incorrect answers?

You first.

Captain G:

Frankly I can't quite figure out what you are trying to say other than you were not convinced.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Tia:

Those connections, not put forth by the Bush adminstrationput but others, were disproved by the time of the 9/11 commission.

The commision did conclude that there was a link between Al-Quaeda and Saddam but there was no collaborative link.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 09:31 PM

Wow. How did all of those articles slip past the 911 commission?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,DIckey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 02:44 PM

Lest it be deleted because of no handle, the above post was mine

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

Dear RD:

"And you have NEVER come up with even one quote DURING THAT PERIOD that establishes that the Bush regime was not trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public. Goebbels would have been proud."

Seems to me that you are saying Bush linked Saddam and 9/11 in the SOU address.

At least it seems you are trying to skillfully draw links between the SOU speech and the Poll that claimed 70% of Americans believed there was a link.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have all stated several times the there was no connection. A rather unskillful way to run a propaganda campaign I would say.

Would you say that their statements that there was no connection consitute one quote DURING THAT PERIOD" to the contrary?

You continue to ignore the fact that people could have gotten it from other sources like this one from 1999, before the alleged propaganda campaign:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

Or this: By Julian Borger in Washington Saturday February 6, 1999 The Guardian

Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.

Here is one that goes back to the 1993 Trade Center bombings:

Saddam's Fingerprints on N.Y. Bombings

The Wall Street Journal
By Laurie Mylroie June 28, 1993

Or from these post 9/11 sources:

Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy
$1 Trillion Suit Claims Iraqi Officials Knew Of Bin Laden Terror Plans

CBS News NEW YORK, Sept. 5, 2002

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
By Con Coughlin 13/12/2003
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada

Respectfully yours,

Dickey

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM

Sorry for the broken clicky.

HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:45 AM

January GQ has a fascinating look at what was going on inside the US Government in the run-up to the Iraq invasion… from a Republican (Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war-authorizing resolution, and supported the invasion until recently.

Note in particular his comments on:

the wording of the resolution as it was sent to Congress by the Bush Administration- asking for authorization to go to war *anywhere in the Middle East*!!!!! (hmmmm Iran, Syria??)

the honesty of Bush's pre-war WMD claims

(both are on page 3).

Full interview here:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=1

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:51 AM

Dickey, you keep asking who *here* was convinced by Bush's propaganda, and when no one says "ME!", you seem to imply that therefore, Bush did not actually engage in such propaganda.

But, most *here* are not among the 70%, so you are posing the question in the wrong forum. Please go to Fox News online (or somesuch if it exists) and pose the same question.

Even there, you may not get truthful answers since only 28% reportedly now think the war is justified, and the Fox-types are not real good at saying "Gee I'm sorry, I was wrong back then, maybe you are not a traitor after all..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:31 AM

...are you saying that seven out of 10 of your countrymen are stupid? Stupid enough to vote Repuiblican?

Got it in one.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 04:00 AM

Guest Dickey,

You have no doubt by now realised that Ron tends to read more into things than is actually stated, things that in fact do not exist. He is a master at putting words into peoples mouths then takes them to task for things that have not actually said. By his own admission he does not read, or listen to, what the President says but relies on second-hand reports of what has been said.

Of the various questions asked:
dianavan - 22 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM

"If the Iraqi parliament decides that they do not want more U.S. troops and that they want the U.S. to begin withdrawing the forces already employed, what do you think George should do?"

Under the terms of the UN Mandate and the agreement with the Iraqi Government if the above happened MNF Troops would leave Iraq. That has been stated clearly many times by the President and members of his Administration.

Dianavan's other questions:

1. Do you think Bush lied to the American public and Congress about WMD's in Iraq?

No, he most definitely did not, the basis for stating that Iraq possessed WMD's came from UNSCOM's Report of 19th January 1999 to the Security Council of the United Nations - That is a matter of record

2. Do you think Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.?

I do not know.

3. Do you think that Iraq is more livable today than it was 5 years ago?

Define "livable", one thing is for certain though, Iraqi's today are living in a situation that will continually and consistantly improve over the coming years. Had Saddam been left in place there would have been a second Iran/Iraq War in prospect within the next two years, there is absolutely no way that Saddam Hussein would permit Iran to have nuclear power, let alone nuclear weapons.

4. Who do you think should repair the infrastructure?

We all should, MNF partners, the Iraqi Government and it's major trading partners, you're not going to get money from anybody else. With that programme underway some will recognise it for what it is - pro-active engagement - you dianavan will call it US Imperialist meddling.

5. Do you think Saddam was involved in 911?

Categoric No.

6. Do you think Bush will leave the Middle East when Iraq tells them to go home or will he just move his troops elsewhere?

When told to leave Iraq the MNF troops will do just that. Where those troops are then deployed, I haven't got a clue and neither have you. Personally I would like to see the MNF deployed to the Sudan to sort the mess in Darfur out. One thing is for certain the United Nations is going to do nothing about it.

As for Ron's questions, I believe that Guest Dickey has answered them, unfortunately Ron did not like the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:04 AM

Dickey, love, I never believed there was a connection, but then I'm not American and therefore haven't the disadvantages that those 70 per cent clearly have.
One presumes that that 70 per cent includes that majority of Americans who don't have a passport, who only watch domestic news and who receive the majority of their opinions from those who shout loudest. One presumes that it also probably includes those who believe in the literal truth of the Old Testament and sundry other crackpot ideas.
And it certainly would include those who look upon the 'commander in chief' as some sort of infallible being, incapable of wrongdoing (unless, of course, he's a pinko faggot Democract!) and therefore whose every twist and insinuation is to be believed.
What I'm struggling to understand, Dickey, is whether or not your're stating that such claims have a legitimacy because these poor benighted folk believe them, notwithstanding Bush and Cheney's express comments that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 ;-) . Which, of course, is true in one sense, as it was on the cards before the actions of the hijackers gave it a spurious justification. Or are you saying that seven out of 10 of your countrymen are stupid? Stupid enough to vote Repuiblican?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 12:44 AM

Please restate those questions courteously and I will answer them if you promise to answer mine.

The word courteously means Characterized by gracious consideration toward others.

You allege that Bush convinced the American people that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 yet no one here says they were convinced by anybody or anything that there was a connection. This leads me to believe that your allegation is wrong. Your allegation seems more like propaganda that truth.

The fact that you have to be rude and talk down to anybody that disagrees with your opinion does not help your credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:26 PM

My dear friend Dickey--

Sorry Dickey (no pun intended--perish the thought)----

When talking to you I'm always reminded of Professor Higgins---"Give (him, in your case) kindness--or the treatment (he) deserves?"

If you read my post of 23 Jan 2007 7:20 AM, there were 3 specific questions I posed to you. You have answered only the first. Not that I would want to cast aspersions on your reading ability, or your ability to follow clear directions. And I certainly wouldn't want to imply that you purposely did not answer the other 2 questions since you were aware the answers would severely weaken your already pathetic argument. I'd never want to insinuate anything of the kind. No indeed.

I'm sure it's only an oversight on your part.

Please remedy it.

Then I will give you the follow-up questions. I don't want to confuse you by asking too much at once.

I'm sure you understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:33 PM

Bush continues to make the connection EVEN NOW, when he talks about taking the fight (of the war on terrorism) to the enemy ie. in IRaq.

if there is no connection between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11 why even say that.
Anyway Dickie youre flogging a dead horse- most Americans now see they were misled , that Iraq was a mistake (with more and more Republicans lining up against Bush) and the overwhelming view even of the troops is that the so-called militarily meaningless 'surge' of 21500 troops is not going to accomplish anything (other than possibly leave the situation in the next administration)..

you can nitpick the past all you want but the issue is long decided.

well I guess you can say there is a connection betn Iraq and Alqaeda,
(what with Abu Ghraib and gitmo) its served as a good recruitment tool for Alqaeda ,but that was only after the US invaded.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:55 PM

Was anybody here convinced by anybody or anything that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?

If so, who or what convinced you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:52 PM

Were you convinced by Bush that there was a connection?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:04 PM

No one would claim that Bush, and Bush alone, is responsible for 70% of FOX NEWS viewers believing the Saddam/911 link (note that, I believe, the 70% was not *all* Americans, but specifically habitual viewers of FOX NEWS -- I'll have to check on this, or please correct me if you know I am wrong).

But it is certainly easy to instill this erroneous link by mentioning them in the same breath, over and over and over again. Even if what you are saying can be (weakly) construed as denying the link, repetition of the association accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you can literally claim you are saying.

For instance, I cannot say with certainty that Dickey is being obtuse in this discussion. In fact, I cannot confirm that Dickey is willfully flaunting common sense. Although some say that his position is intellectually dishonest, far be it from me to accuse Dickey of being disingenuous. It would be innappropriate for me to say that Dickey has not the slightest grasp of how propaganda actually works.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM

Invading Iraq to stop fundamentalist Muslim terrorists is like searching on Broadway for a wallet you lost on Second Avenue because the ligh's better.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:08 PM

My argument is that the poll did not ask where 70% of the population got the idea of the connection. Libs blame it on Bush even though he said several times there was no connection.

There were other sources like PBS that did make the connection but they are being overlooked in the alleged Bush propaganda campaign.

Were you convinced by Bush that there was a connection?

You are welcome to your opinion but I am not going to call you a fruit because your opinion is different from mine.

Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link
"US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks."

Rumsfeld sees no link between Saddam Hussein, 9/11

"Defense Secretary says he has no reason to think Saddam had a hand in the 9-11 terrorist attacks."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:05 AM

Dickey, old fruit, of course the US population wasn't persuaded by that one speech; it was persuaded by an insidious drip of misinformation and distorted truths from all across the administration and from the propagandists in Fox News and in the ranting pulpits across the USA.
Google Iraq, Saddam and 9/11 and you will see that the link has been made time and again. You are not a stupid man, so why the wilful refusal to accept that, and instead to hide behind syllogisms and hair-splitting?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:12 AM

Dear Ron: Here is a direct, courteous answer to your question:

Yes. Bush said:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein."

Now Please give me a direct, courteous answer to my questions:

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Yes or no?

Do you believe that 70% of Americans were convinced by that SOU speech that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?

Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:05 AM

"That is the first purpose of our engagement in Iraq."

Oh, I see.

The first purpose seems to change frequently.

And now its not Saddam who is the enemy but Islamic fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM

I take it Guest TIA that you have not read the relevant sections of the the 2002 State of the Union Address, or, the 2003 State of the Union Address.

Please do so, then you will see that Mr. Judd's remarks make perfect sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:58 PM

The following is clearly NOT an attempt to link 9/11 with Saddam. And note the date...

"Our basic national interest in Iraq is the protection of America, our desire to make sure that we are projecting our purposes in a way that reduces the ability of those who would wish to do us harm in this war against us, which was declared in the late 1990s, when it was obviously brought to our shores on September 11, that in that war we are best postured to make sure terrorists, specifically Islamic fundamentalists who wish to do us harm, are not successful. That is the first purpose of our engagement in Iraq."

Judd Gregg R-NH
January 18, 2007
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r110:S18JA7-0015:

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:26 AM

"Saddam"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:23 AM

Actual quote is: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".

Now for your answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:20 AM

"Guest" Dickey---


In answer to your question, here are mine, yet again. Perhaps you'll answer this time.

1 ) In the January 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".

Yes or no?

2) Do you think he was inviting his audience to imagine that 19 hijackers again appeared--but with weapons supplied by Sadddam?

Yes or no?


3) If not, EXACTLY what do you think he meant? Sorry," I don't know" is not acceptable as an answer.

It's fairly evident to any literate being what he meant. I would like you to confirm that you are a literate being by answering directly.


And if you don't, the debate will not progress. I will hammer away at you until you do give a direct answer--in detail. And, unlike Lehrer, my participation here is not dependent on PBS funding--so I'm sorry to say I don't care about my "ratings". No going on to the next questions until these are finished.


Rattled? In your dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:33 AM

Ron: You are straying way off of the subject matter that you put forth about the alleged propaganda campaign and then abandonded.

Could it be that you are avoiding answering questions?

Please answer this one:

Do you believe that 70% of the American people were convinced by Bish's SOU speech that there was a link btween Saddam and 9/11?

I am not specifying a certain answer. You can answer yes or no. Either answer will do.

Now another one:

Do you believe that it is the job of the government to try to anticipate possible threats to security and try to prevent them?

Again, you can answer yes or no. Either answer will do.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:23 AM

Ron Davies - 22 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM

What a revealing post Ron - It reveals just how badly rattled you are.

GUEST,Dickey's post of 22 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM sums it up perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 01:07 AM

"Everything else he stands for is anathema to any thinking being."

Such overwhelming respect for the viewpoints of others.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 12:56 AM

Show me the SPECIFIC question about the SPECIFIC language of the SOU that I did not answer. The problem is that If I don't give the answer you want, you claim I did not answer.

Show me where you have answered any but one of my questions. Are you above answering questions?

You insist that I do things that you won't do. A very dignified and honorable approach.

And I don't imagine things. You imagine things were said that were not said. You were not convinced but you claim others were convinced and you won't even state whether you believe your own claim or not. You just keep trying get me to make the same false claim and talk down to me if I won't. If I point out your avoidance of the questions and you tactics devious tactics you falsely accuse me of whining.

Certainly more than ten people have been reading this thread. according to you 7 of them were convinced by Bush's SOU that Saddam and 9/11 were connected. Where are they at?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:43 PM

And you still have not answered the SPECIFIC questions about the SPECIFIC language of the State of the Union speech. Not that I expect that you ever will--perhaps you'll claim that you don't understand. To any literate person, my questions are quite clear and specific. In contrast to your absurd general allegations.

I assure you no threat is intended--that's in your active imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:37 PM

Sorry--"unprincipled demogoguery" is redundant--demagoguery is quite enough. And that's what Bush is all about--with only two exceptions. He is right that all illegal immigrants should be put on a path to citizenship----without leaving the US. And he was right about Dubai and the ports.

Everything else he stands for is anathema to any thinking being.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:30 PM

"Interesting, Dickey, that for all your whining, you haven't found time to answer the specific questions I posed to you about exactly what Bush said. I'm sorry I won't have time to waste on you for a while--but I'll check in. And again, so sorry you don't like my attitude. Pobre cito."

Name one question that was not answered prior to your previous post.

Show me any whining.

You sir are retreating and trying to make it look like I retreated by making false accusations against me personally.

I think a honest, sincere and humble approach would suit an intelligent person like you better. n'est pas?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:27 PM

I asked you specifically what Bush said in the January 2003 State of the Union speech--I quoted it--and asked you what you thought it meant. Good dodging and weaving. But we've seen it before. Try again. You won't get away that easily.

But as I said, I have very little time to waste on you for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:24 PM

By the way, I'm glad you like bluegrass--so do I. But I haven't met or heard of one person who supports Bush except out of hate and/or fear. In 2004 it was hate and fear of homosexuals and terrorists--and implication that if you vote for Kerry, "a dirty bomb could be exploded here in_______________". Much more likely if you vote for Kerry. That was the level of the Bush campaign---and it continues his tradition of unprincipled demagoguery. So if you defend him or his policies, you need some pretty tight argumentation. So far, you haven't measured up.


And I'm a registered Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:20 PM

D: I answered those questions but I forgot to put my handle on it and it went away.Here it is again.

George should tell them to allow more troops or we are leaving. If they want us to leave, leave. Of course this is up to him.

1. No
2. I don't know.
3. In some ways yes in some ways no. Overall I don't think it is any worse.
4. I think the profits from their oil that used to go into 40 or 50 palaces for Saddam should repair the infrastructure.
5. No I don't think saddam was involved in 9/11 nor have I heard anybody else say so.
6. I think Bush or more correctly the Armed forces of the US will want a military base there. Remember we left Saudi Arabia at their request.

Furthermore I do not just think these things, I believe these things. However it is difficult to get peacemongers to say what they believe. They merely make accusations and insinuations and refuse to back it up personally.

Now where are your answers to any of my questions? Are you a person that demands answers but won't give any?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:16 PM

Interesting, Dickey, that for all your whining, you haven't found time to answer the specific questions I posed to you about exactly what Bush said. I'm sorry I won't have time to waste on you for a while--but I'll check in. And again, so sorry you don't like my attitude. Pobre cito.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM

Again that guest was me.

Ron:

I didn't realize that you were an official here at Mudcat. Are you threatening me again?

I like Bluegrass mostly and most of other genres except stuff like rap, hip hip and screechy opera.

No, I don't like to play word games. That is your forte.

You display a penchant for talking down to anybody you disagree with and taking a superior attitude as if you don't have to answer any questions but you can demand answers to your questions. You even have to resort to pointing out spelling and grammatical errors as a method to appear superior.

Why don't you take on a more humble, sincere approach and answer my questions directly?

I have no doubt that you are intelligent and I am not going to stoop to your level of implying that the person you disagree with is stupid and therefore they are wrong.

I have had only one answer from you and that agrees with my position.

Please start from the top and do the same thing you want me to do. Give me the same courtesy that you demand.

Should I add some of your insulting and demeaning jibes like "if it is not to much trouble" or "if you can stand the heat"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM

"Guest" Dickey--

What kind of music do you like? Believe it or not, Mudcat doesn't need "politics only" posters.

Now to business:

So--you like to play stupid word games. Fascinating.

I'm not sure--but I would bet that your quotes were by Democrats--maybe Hillary or someone similar. It's an old game--surely even you can do better.   But better luck next time.

Now try this:

Bush said "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein".

Yes or no?

Do you think he was inviting his audience to imagine that 19 hijackers again appeared--but with weapons supplied by Saddam?

Yes or no?

If not, exactly what do you think he meant?

Please check my posting of 19 Jan 2007 10:11 PM.--specifically the paragraph starting: "And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies..."

I make it quite clear to anybody who can read---perhaps this doesn't include you--that Bush was suggesting a future similar event, not blaming Saddam for 9-11. Please start to read--and comprehend, if possible.

The river of denial, like Jordan, is deep and wide---and you're drowning in it. It must be a total mystery to you how 70% of the US public wound up believing in a connection between Saddam and 9-11.--according to you--not my figure.    And Bush only wanted to suggest an event in the future--in which of course Saddam would figure.

Surely no member of the Bush "team" would have had anything to do with that perception by the US public. Of course not.

Hey look,, I have this bridge I was going to sell Teribus. I'll be glad to take his name off and put yours on. Just say the word. You sound like a man who'd appreciate a good bridge.

Don't forget that visit to your library. You still need to learn about how propaganda works.

As I've told Teribus uncounted times, at bottom Iraq is a political problem. The Sunnis must be able to trust the police--on a long-term basis--and must be assured of more oil income that would accrue to just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq. So far there's no indication either problem has been solved.

Re: your favorite TV show: Uh, how many people do you think watched the PBS show to which you refer. (Being a generous soul, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not lying through your teeth about it.) And how many do you think watched, heard, or read about the State of the Union speech? For extra credit, which number is larger? Duh.

Please start thinking--if it's not too much trouble.

"Does your condecending (sic)..." Please learn to spell--or possibly check your work. It might help. It breaks my heart that you don't like my attitude. If you can't stand the heat........

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM

Dickey - If the Iraqi parliament decides that they do not want more U.S. troops and that they want the U.S. to begin withdrawing the forces already employed, what do you think George should do?

Here are some questions for you to answer:

1. Do you think Bush lied to the American public and Congress about WMD's in Iraq?

2. Do you think Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.?

3. Do you think that Iraq is more livable today than it was 5 years ago?

4. Who do you think should repair the infrastructure?

5. Do you think Saddam was involved in 911?

6. Do you think Bush will leave the Middle East when Iraq tells them to go home or will he just move his troops elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 06:09 PM

There is nothing to "get" but the false accusation that Bush is responsible.

Having found no one that was convinced that 9/11 and Saddam was connected by Bush's speech, I have to say that they got the idea elsewhere.

Were you convinced?

I cited sources where people could have gotten the idea and I cited several times where Bush stated that there was no connection.

The assertion that he is responsible is propaganda that is being promoted and you have fallen for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:33 PM

a simple explanation of Bush's policy, and "More troops" from Tom Toles, Wash. Post cartoonist.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:24 PM

Dickey, dear, you really don't get it, do you? Propaganda is much more subtle these days.
And why did 70 per cent of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Are you going to tell us that seven out of 10 of your compatriots are congenitally stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 05:04 PM

It may have been discredited later but at the time it could have contributed to making 70% of the people in the US think Saddam and 9/11 were connected. There was another big expose of the connection on PBS featuring one of Clinton staffers that was even more convincing but I can't find it now.

You superior attitude does not add any weight to your responses.

I think the Iraqis want democracy and they want the killing to end. I do not think they are blaming it on the Americans and I have not heard any of the citizens say directly that they want the US to leave. At the beginning before the media was concentrating on the negative, I saw people in the street asking if we were going to leave. The answer was we will stay as long as you want us to. Have they asked us to leave yet?

All I hear are people speaking for them.

What do you believe the Iraqi people want?

Do you believe of the US pulls out the killing will end and the people will be happy that we left?

And it is up to the commander in Chief to make the call unless you want to circumvent the constitution. I read once that Thomas Jefferson said when foreign policy is concerned, we elect a tyrant every 4 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 03:38 PM

Dickey - Do keep up. The reports that, "... claimed that Salman Pak was being used to train foreign terrorists." Has long been discredited. More "faulty intelligence" released by the spin doctors for public consumption.

The people of Iraq most certainly do know about Sadr and what he represents. They voted accordingly. If its truly a democracy, then they are the representatives of the people. If the people want something else, I certainly haven't heard anything about it.

What do you think the Iraqi people want?

Whatever that might be, it is not up to George to make the call.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:55 PM

Impeach PBS

"In a PBS special on US television, a man identified only "an Iraqi Lieutenant General", claimed that in 2000 he had been "the security officer in charge of the unit" at Salman Pak and had seen Arab students being taught how to hijack airliners using a Boeing 707 fuselage at Salman Pak. The independent Iraqi weekly Al-Yawm Al-Aakher interviewed a former Iraqi officer who also claimed that Salman Pak was being used to train foreign terrorists."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:31 PM

Sorry, that last post was for Dianavan, not Ebbie.

Don:

Now that I think about it, the phrase "this time" proves that Bush was not referring to 9/11. It he were the phrase would be that time, they were or then.

I think you are very well versed in Propaganda. You keep repeating things you don't believe on order to convince the masses that they are true.

Neither you or I or anyone here has said that Bush's SOU made them think that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

Isn't it possible that the 70% could have gotten it from other sources like the PBS program I mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:20 PM

Ebbie: Another person that likes to talk down to others to reinfore their position.

Does it or doesn't it say what any of the other 26 million people in Iraq want.?

I say it does not. It may say what the majority of Elected Parliament wants. When the people voted for them I suppose they knew all about what Sadir would do and what Parliament would do and voted acordingly.

Do you believe that what Parliament wants is also what the people want?

I believe that those members are afraid of Sadir or they want to use him to wipe out the Sunnis.

Do you believe that they are not afraid of Sadir and that they do not want to wipe out the Sunnis?

A smart person like you can certainly give a yes or no answer without trying to discredit the person asking the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM

Dickey - He told the public to IMAGINE terrorists armed with Saddam's (imaginary WMD's).

Thats not only irresponsible, its designed to mislead the public and create fear. Its an abuse of power.

I do not know how the pull out will end but I do believe that the Iraqi parliament does not necessarily want more U.S. troops and that the decision is up to them, not George Bush. We have had enough of his 'go it alone' policy. Its time for Congress to put a stop to his impulsive aggression.

Its not a matter of more or less intelligence. Its a matter of being able to critically analyse what is said or done. If GWB does not possess these abilities, why should I expect more of the public? Some do, some don't. Thats why propaganda is so effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 02:10 AM

Does your condecending demeanor have no limits?

You have answered one question truthfully. You did not beleive there was a connection after hearing the speech. We have common ground there. However you claim that others did. Were they less intelligent?

"Do you deny that he linked Saddam to 9-11?   Yes or no?"
Yes I deny that he linked Saddam to 9/11.

"Do you deny that he told us to imagine that the 19 hijackers were armed by Saddam?--after we'd been warned many times that Saddam had WMD? Yes or no?"

Yes I deny that he told us to imagine that the 19 hijackers were armed by Saddam. If you look at the phrase "this time armed by Saddam Hussein" you will see that he is not talking not something that has already happened.

As to the "after we'd been warned many times that Saddam had WMD?" part I will have to ask warned by whom and when? Do you believe that Bush and his adminstration wer the only people telling us the Saddam had WMD's?

Now why can't an intelligent person like you answer the rest of the questions?

Did Saddam support terrorisim yes or no?

Who were the quotations from and when?

Can you tell us how an immediate pullout will end?

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to "regain momentum" as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 01:49 AM

Dickie - Do try to keep up. You say, "It does not say what any of the other 26 million people in Iraq want."

We are talking about the majority of the elected Parliament of Iraq. They are followers of Sadr and are Sadrists. They are Shiites. They are the majority. They speak for the majority of the people of Iraq.

The Sadrist seem to think the people of Iraq should decide whether or not they want more U.S. troops. They are there to make sure the new government is not another U.S. puppet and to keep Maliki on the right track. They also financially back Maliki.

Sounds to me that democracy in Iraq may be working after all. Its just not the same kind of 'democracy' George Bush had planned on.

George has failed, plain and simple. I think the Sadrists and Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament can make the decisions and they really do not want any more U.S. help. Its time for George to go home now.

btw - George's idea of sending Kurdish soldiers into Baghdad seems to have resulted in alot of Kurdish desertions. Seems they don't think this is their war. Although they are mostly secular, they really do not with to be associated with Arab Sunnis. This is not their fight.

...and Dickie, please learn how to read with a critical consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:30 AM

I can also tell you how the "surge" is going to turn out. A total failure--that looks like success.

Reason:

1)   al Sadr has told his people to not wear black uniforms any more--just blend back into the population. A grateful population will be glad to accept them.

2) Any al Queda fighters will leave Baghdad and go out into the provinces--where they and their sympathizers know the territory--and the Americans don't.

3) Anybody else interested in civil war, revenge, or just crimes of opportunity will just lie low for a while.


Maliki and Bush will brag about all the neighborhoods that have been cleared. The body count will go way down. Then the Americans will leave. And the militia fighters in the police and army will start killing indiscriminately again. And the other groups will go back to current behavior. And Iraq will again be back in the soup---without Americans there to act as buffers between the various fighting groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:11 AM

Dickey--that's a pretty pathetic trap.

You'd best start thinking. People around here read--and are probably better informed than you on virtually every topic.

Everybody knows that many people--Republican and Democrat-- were convinced at the time that Saddam was a danger. Many, however, felt the UN inspectors should be given more time. And your quotes do not deny this.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:04 AM

Dickey--this means you.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 12:03 AM

Do you deny that he linked Saddam to 9-11?   Yes or no?

Do you deny that he told us to imagine that the 19 hijackers were armed by Saddam?--after we'd been warned many times that Saddam had WMD? Yes or no?

Simple questions. Let's have answers.


In answer to your questions, no I was not fearful of a connection between Saddam and 9-11. Because I had read--in the Wall St Journal, of all places-- that there were many allegations Bush was making that had no evidence to back them up.

But plenty of people did buy his despicable propaganda. Somehow I think you're one--and you still believe Bush's drivel about--"if we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll fight them here."

And I'm not a knee-jerk pacifist, by the way--just somebody who thinks--you should try it sometime---and wants answers before doing something like starting a war. I----in common with most of the world-- thought the attack on the Taliban and bin Laden was totally justified. The attack on Iraq was not--and the propaganda campaign was the only way the Bush regime marshalled US public opinion behind his war.

I called the White House call-in line and warned him against it. Specifically because I foresaw what did happen---the more pictures of dead women and children broadcast on al-Jazeera, the more terrorists---all over the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:59 PM

Did Saddam support terrorisim yes or no?

Does this sound familiar?:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Who said it and when?

How about this?:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM

Punishing terrorists is a good idea. Preventing terrorism is a great idea. But what did either have to do with Iraq?
Under Sadam, iraq was as far from being a Jihadist stronghold as can be imagined; his government was brutal, dictatorial and secular.
On t'other hand, if you recall, the terrorists that committed the 9-11 monstrosity had nothing to do with Iraq. If we had to invade someone for purposes of retaliation and self-protection, the clear targets would have been Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. We did make a half-assed attempt in Afghanistan, but......Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:54 PM

"Be sure to make that visit to your library soon. You really need to learn about propaganda--you obviously have no clue of how it operates.."

So you still haven't found any other way of proving your point besides discrediting others, and talking down to them and thereby adoiding answering any questions.

Do I have to keep asking the same questions over and over are you going to admit that you can't or won't answer them?

"a fearful country over and over" Were you fearful? How many times?

How many times did he deny there was any connection?

After hearing the speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

If you did believe there was a connection it would be easy for you to answer yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 09:38 PM

So Is this good or bad? Would they have ended their boycott If there was no effort to send more troops? Would they have ended their boycott if the troops were withdrawn?

There is absolutely nothing in your post to explain the ending of the boycott or to explain why they were boycotting.

The article says "Sadrists were angered by an announced addition of 21,500" It does not say what any of the other 26 million people in Iraq want.

After hearing the SOU speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

And for the third time: Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

I can't get an answer on this one either:
After hearing the speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

Why is it so hard to state what you believe?

I don't see anything here about wanting the US to withdraw:

Email from an Iraqi

"Dear Richard,

Thanks for both your emails. I read the interesting article. Such debates are common to us. People may go in a vicious circle in case of trying to convince those who encourage the terrorists - I guess such persons or groups who defend the terrorists are very little to check sites like this so that they can in turn improve themselves for democracy world. The mission is not to agitate such subjects among people whom are considered as educated people, it is rather how to communicate with those rural people who work as a nest to terrorists...

..Keep in mind what is issued in Yahoo is not accurate. The news said(Suicide Blast Kills 54 at Iraq Gas Station) By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer, this news together with the picture is not accurate. Try to draw the attention of Yahoo concerned people who are in charge.

The gas station is far about 1 km distance. When the picture showed an isolated place whereas the post is in midst of buildings. It is at the center of the local public market. "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM

Dickey--

"he merely raised the idea"---over and over and over. And linked Saddam to 9-11---over and over and over. Implying to a fearful country over and over--that if they didn't do something soon, there would likely be another 9-11-----with Saddam supplying the perpetrators with WMD.   Do you deny this?


Be sure to make that visit to your library soon. You really need to learn about propaganda--you obviously have no clue of how it operates..

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 07:39 PM

The largest bloc of the Iraqi parliament doesn't appear to want more U.S. troops, either. At least he thinks the new, "democratic government" of Iraq should have some say about it.

"The Sadrist bloc, the largest in the Iraqi parliament, ended their almost two-month boycott of the government on Sunday. The group boycotted the government following a bombing that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City.

One of the Sadrist politicians' top demands was a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, a handover of security to the Iraqi government and a promise not to agree to more U.S. troops without the consent of the parliament. They returned only after a committee was formed to discuss their demands and present them to the parliament, said Nassar al-Rubaie, head of the Sadrist bloc."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16514606.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:06 PM

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein..."

The key word here is 'imagine'.

He may not have directly linked Saddam with 911 (he left that up to the imagination of the world). When preceded by, "But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained," he not only linked the idea of Saddam to 911 (terrorists) but indicated that Saddam had WMD's.

A person in such a position of power and authority with a bevy of consultants, should speak and act responsibly. Not only are those statements irresponsible, they are intended to mislead the public.

Are you defending Bush on the basis of 'faulty intelligence' or are you just plain ignorant when it comes to propaganda? Do you actually condone misleading Congress and the American public?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:46 PM

Dianavan:

Why do you think I support Bush?

I disagree with some of his policies and I support some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:32 PM

Ron: Thanks for your condescending remarks about me not being able to read or needing to learn about propaganda. That really adds weight to your answers or non answers.

We agree that he never did say it. Can we agree that he said several times that there was no connection?

I agree that he did warn about what "might" happen not "would" happen if we did nothing about him. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

Can you provide any evidence that 70% of the American people thought Saddam and 9/11 were connected due to Bush's SOU address? The poll did not ask that question. You are connecting the the poll and Bush's speech with an assertion, not evidence. After hearing the speech did you believe that Saddam and 9/11 were connected?

He did not link 9/11 to Saddam. Here merely raised the idea of Saddam providing chemical, bio or dirty bombs to a terrorist group, not specifically al Quaeda, in an attack similar to 9/11.

Again I am asking because you have avoided directly answering the question:

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 11:38 AM

Dickey--you need to visit your library in the worst way---and learn about propaganda. As I said, a fearful population can easily be manipulated. And juxtaposition--over and over-- is an excellent propaganda technique.

You still can't read--Bush never did say that Saddam caused 9-11. But he did most certainly warn about what would happen if we did nothing about him---and he linked it to 9-11.

You have provided no evidence to the contrary.



And it would be appreciated if you abide by Mudcat's very few and very reasonable rules--such as picking one handle and sticking to it.   We have found that many "Guests" don't.

And by the way, I don't contact Joe for such things. But he and his team monitor the posts.

Thanks so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:19 AM

Hey Ron see any similarity:

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." - Bill Clinton - 1998.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes." - George W Bush - 2003 State of the Union Address.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:46 AM

"Rather than answering the questions directly you have attacked me and tried to discredit me by by accusing me of being comatose, unable to read and being a Bushite."

Oh dear Ron, it looks like Dickey, has got your number in one.

Standing by for another personal attack, one thing I will not get is an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:41 AM

Dickey - Why do you support Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 11:01 PM

Rather tahn answering the questions directly you have attacked me and tried to discredit me by by accusing me of being comatose, unable to read and being a Bushite.

I have said exactly what I conclude from the statement "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein." which you have again tried to throw out of context by taking out "Imagine those" and "with other weapons and other plans"

"Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection--which was exactly what Bush wanted to do." Is your assertion. It has been pointed out several times that Bush and Chaney said several times that there was no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11. Yet it has never been pointed out that they said there was a direct connection.

Yet you have not answered the two questions:

Where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

"Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection--which was exactly what Bush wanted to do." Is your assertion. It has been pointed out several times that Bush and Cheney said several times that there was no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11. Yet it has never been pointed out that they said there was a direct connection.

And I do have the guts.

Do you have the guts to answer them directly or would you rather go crying to Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:00 PM

Dickey--

As good Bushite, it seems you can't read either. No surprise there.

If you ever learn to read, you will see that I never alleged that Bush said Saddam had a connection to 9-11. But when you do learn to read, you may want to visit your local library--and learn about propaganda. Just the use of 9-11 and Saddam in the same sentence was enough, in the minds of a fearful US public, to raise the connection--which was exactly what Bush wanted to do. And he did more than once in the same speech--as I have pointed out.

Or perhaps you weren't comatose in the period after 9-11--and have no idea of the palpable atmosphere of fear--and search for scapegoats--which characterized that time.

And what do you think Bush meant by "19 hijackers... this time armed by Saddam Hussein"?   As I said before, he's not saying Saddam caused 9-11. But he is clearly saying, that with Saddam possessing the WMD we were assured he had, the next 19 hijackers may well be armed with what Saddam has---WMD. And the clear implication is that we had best do something soon to counter that.

2 months later came his answer to stop Saddam from arming the next hijackers---the Iraq invasion.



Now the question is: will you have the guts to keep your handle--or will Joe have to delete your postings again since you have no intention of keeping one name?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 12:05 PM

Correction:

If you really believe what you are talking about, you will answer these two questions directly. Otherwise you will have to do a little dance and try to discredit me for asking them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 12:04 PM

Full paragraph before it chopping a part out and taking it out of context:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Now where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?

It does not say. It does not imply that. It merely rasies the future specter of terrorists with chemical or bio weapons that Saddam was belived, as far back as 1998 before, GWB could have "cooked" the evidence, to have possessed. And it states thet the events of 9/11 made more people aware of the possibility of such things happening.

Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

If you really believe what you are talking about, you will answer these two questions directly. oTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE TO DO A LITTLE DANCE AND ATTEMOPT TO DISCREDIT ME FOR ASKING THE QUESTIONS

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

And this is also interesting--from the Wall St Journal today 20 Jan 2007:

"Iraq's cabinet next week is to take up a draft law on dividing the nation's oil wealth. Lack of such an arrangement has fed sectarian friction..."

Exactly what I've been saying--for over a year--and you, Teribus, have been denying. Once more, in case you didn't hear the other uncounted times I said this: The Sunnis must be guaranteed more oil income than would accrue to them from just the "Sunni parts" of Iraq--which are poor in oil. This is necessary in order for them to feel they have a future in the new Iraq--and is part of defusing the civil war now raging.

You, Teribus, on the other hand, have consistently said that the Sunnis "deserve nothing"---a typically-- amazingly stupid stance of yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM

"unnecessary"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:50 AM

Teribus----



I'm glad you recognize that you are pathetic. Recognition is the first step to doing something about the problem. But I'm sorry to say your progress is painfully slow. You still can't even read. You really should make an effort to do so.



"possible similar attack in the future with much graver consequences" Duh, that's exactly what I just finished saying.

Do you have any idea what "this time armed by Saddam Hussein" means? Do you have any idea of what country Saddam ruled in 2002? Do you have any idea what country Bush had targeted--at least by summer 2002?

Once more with feeling: the Bush regime exploited the US deep fear engendered by 9-11 to stoke hate and fear against Saddam--whom he had already, at least by summer 2002, decided to attack. That was the propaganda campaign--which started about summer 2002 (not before)--for an unnecesssary war-- of Bush's choice---for which he deserves designation as the all-time worst US president.

Don't bother with your red herrings about no connection between 9-11 and Saddam in the days just after 9-11. In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, it is my contention that the firm decision to attack Iraq had not been made. By summer 2002, it most certainly had been.

So the quotes from you must START in summer 2002--through the day of the actual invasion--in March 2003.

And since you have unlimited time to waste with meaningless cut-and-pastes, please don't forget to also address the issues brought up by petr--logical arguments as to why the decisions he cites were not the stupidest ones made in the Iraq war.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:58 AM

OK Ron, being really pathetic, let's have a little challenge.

Between 11th September, 2001 and 20th March, 2003.

I will list all reported instances in which the President, Vice-President and members of the Bush Administration categorically said that Saddam Hussein/Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks that occurred on 11th September, 2001.

You on the other hand will list all reported instances in which the President, Vice-President and members of the Bush Administration categorically said that Saddam Hussein/Iraq did have something to do with those attacks.

Now I will have no trouble at all doing that - you on the other hand will. You will come back with your usual load of drivel, in which I am sure you truly believe, because that happens to be the spin put on it by whoever it was who wrote the report of the speech that you read. If I hear that someone makes a definite statement with regard to something, that is what I will take as being fact from their perspective.

For how and where the two become linked (i.e. threat to the US, US interests and allies. 911 and Iraq - we have been attacked, this is the threat of a possible similar attack in the future with much graver consequences) read the published texts of the 2002 and 2003 State of the Union speeches.

Bush did not identify Saddam Hussein and Iraq as the greatest potential threat to the USA, that was the conclusion of others (Not PNAC).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:11 PM

Teribus--

Not to put too fine a point on it--you are truly pathetic.   But entertaining.

"Colin Powell stood...." Big fat deal. The real propaganda push came, as you may recall we've discussed before-- (for about 500 posts)-- between summer 2002 and March 2003.

And you have NEVER come up with even one quote DURING THAT PERIOD that establishes that the Bush regime was not trying--skilfully--and very successfully--to draw links between 11 Sept 2001 and Saddam in the minds of the US public. Goebbels would have been proud.

"Neither George W Bush...." In plain English---- Bollocks.

For the n th time:   why do you suppose Bush, in the 28 Jan 2003 State of the Union address said; "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained."?

Linking the two in one sentence is pure coincidence? Anything you say.

And how about (also in the same speech): "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein"?

"19 hijackers....Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence. Gee, I wonder why.

And don't bother to give us your tired idiocies about "warning about a future possibility, not saying that Saddam was responsible for 9-11". Of course he's not spelling out that Saddam was responsible for that. Nobody claims that he was. But he is clearly trying to imply that if we don't do something about Saddam--real soon-- there will, in the near future, be a similar situation to 9-11. But "this time armed by Saddam"--who, we have been told over and over, is likely to have chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons. That is--a 9-11 situation--but with chemical, biological and/or nuclear weapons.

It's a message calculated to raise deep fears in his audience--and panic them into supporting his planned Iraq invasion. And combined with the rest of the propaganda campaign--it worked like a charm.

Now perhaps you'd like to tell us your story on why Bush used "19 hijackers" and "Saddam Hussein" in the same sentence--in the above context. Here's your chance to be creative--to let the true fantasist in you take wing. I have faith that you can come up with a delightfully imaginative reason Bush would do this. Enjoy!

It was wonderful fun--entirely too much fun--to slash your feeble arguments to ribbons when we had this discussion about a year ago. And I'm real sorry about your tender ego.

I may not have much time to do it again this year--though it is severely tempting--you're such a huge soft target.

So we'll see how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:08 PM

I dont expect agreement.

I expect a coherent logical argument.

you said The US did not disband the Iraqi army.

I said they did- and pointed to CPA order #2
(and Iwill admit most had already disbanded,
however US military commanders had planned on using them
to keep order & rebuild. Jay Garner even budgeted to keep them on the payroll. But Bremer put a stop to that)

YOu said, the order was meaningless purely administrative, crossing of boxes..

I said why even do it then?
Did the 'meaningless' CPA order #2 to disband
increase the odds of an insurgency? YES or NO

ditto for CPA #1 deBaathification -
(by instantly firing most of the professional class - who
needed to be Baath members to get anywhere and now cant feed their families, did order #1 increase the odds of insurgency? YES or NO

I dont expect you to agree with me.. convince me that both of those
orders werent the stupidest US military decisions in Iraq (among a host of others such as not having enough troops in the first place)
and they didnt lead to the Chaos in IRaq now..

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:53 PM

Er, Terry, it hadn't disbanded itself. The rank and file may largely have scarpered, but there was still an army. Refresh yourself - see the post at 02.31 on January 17.
And any news on firing squads? You do seem remarkably slippery at the moment, poppet - a veritable KY queen of the questions!

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

GUEST,petr - 19 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

"btw. Teribus I see you dodged my question on cpa order 1 and 2 the disbanding of the military and deBaathification - both the Stupidest decisions of the US in Iraq that have contributed to the CHAOS now in Iraq."

My apologies petr, I thought that I had answered your questions in relation to CPA Orders 1 & 2 in my post of 17 Jan 07 - 01:42 AM.

I now realise that no question of yours is ever answered unless the person answering responds in terms of total agreement with your line of reasoning. That being the case you will continue to be sadly disappointed. Your defence of the contention by dianavan that the US Army disbanded the Iraqi Army by drawing our attention to CPA Order 2 is ludicrous - the US Army can hardly be accused of disbanding some entity that has already de facto disbanded itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:19 PM

I deleted a number of anonymous posts from this thread. Most were from a Guest who sometimes uses the name Dickey. If you wish to post at Mudcat, please use a consistent user name, every time you post.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

TEribus..
5 days after 9/11 Powell categorically stated that Iraq had absolutely
no involvement in the attacks? -its pretty astounding that he could make such a statement CATEGORICALLY/ Absolutely in only 5 days, knowing just how inept US intelligence was just the week before.

but despite that Cheney claimed for several years after that Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague - (an event denied repeatedly by Czech secret service.) but Cheney clutched to that straw for years.

btw. Teribus I see you dodged my question on cpa order 1 and 2 the disbanding of the military and deBaathification - both the Stupidest decisions of the US in Iraq that have contributed to the CHAOS now in Iraq.

BUSh & co. now make it look like a choice between a 'surge'
and total immediate withdrawal leading to utter chaos in Iraq (more Chaos that is, than already caused by Bush in choosing this war)

and it is utter baloney. Militarily 21,000 more troops is meaningless,
(you must wonder about that yourself as a military man) they had that 2 years ago and still couldnt keep order.
Second though.. Bush and his administrations ability to predict events seems to have a pretty bad record..

- wildly off the mark (wolfy- when Shinseki estimated 200-300thousand troops would be needed)
- eg. we know he has WMDs and we know where they are (Rummy)
- the war will pay for itself (Wolfy)
- there is no insurgency (Rummy)
- the insurgency is in its death throes (CHeney)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:07 AM

OMG, we are starting THIS discussion again?!?!?

A plan for war against Iraq (and then Syria and Iran...sounding familiar???) was laid out by the neocons in 1996, and was first shopped to Israel, then Clinton -- both took a pass.

The Bush administration started working on this plan immediately upon taking office.

9/11 presented the perfect pretext, and they used it relentlessly.

Don't believe little old me.

The discussion (with links to actual quotes) started in this thread:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=86221#1632857

The same discussion (again with lots of links) continued here:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=87545

The entire propaganda campaign is thoroughly documented in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Pretext-War-Americas-Intelligence-Agencies/dp/140003034X/sr=8-2/qid=1169215137/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-8925953-6995349?ie=UTF8&s=books

And if you don't have the time or inclination to read the whole book, the author summarizes in this interview:

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html

(sorry for the lack of clickies)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 06:03 AM

Five days after the attacks of 911, Colin Powell stood on the steps of United Nations Building in New York and categorically stated that Iraq had absolutely no involvement in the attacks.

Neither, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, any member of their Administration or Tony Blair has EVER said that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks of 911.

But people read into things more than is actually said, I have seen this many, many times in posts on this Forum.

US threats of attacks on Syria, Iran and North Korean, when none have actually been made - All anti-Bush supporters myths - all dearly cherished - but absolutely no foundation in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:22 AM

I totally agree, Petr - "Makes it look like a personal vendetta to me"

He kept the gun of the man he believed was responsible for the assassination attempt on his father.

Just goes to show that when it comes to revenge, Christians and Moslems are not so very different.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM

Actually, there is "Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign"--which continued the discussion of this topic., originally started in about the last 200 or so posts of another thread called (misleadingly) "WMD's Were Found In Iraq". The absurd statement contained in the latter thread title morphed into an extended discussion of the propaganda question.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:06 PM

There was an entire thread dedicated to all of Cheney and Bush's not-so-subliminal conflation of Saddam-9/11-AlQuaeda. For example Cheney's infamous "{...I'm not here to make the specific accusation that Saddam provided safe haven to Al Quaeda...blah, blah}". Find that thread for links to direct quotes that are pretty unmistakable to anyone who is truly objective.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 07:21 PM

ha ha haha ha ha..good one guest.

actually one poll stated 70% Americans believed that Saddam had personal ties to AlQaeda. Now where did people come up with that,
if not the white house.

here
link to the bbc interview.. sure looks like Bush was cornered into admitting it grudgingly to me..

(even though He denied any proof of an Iraq 9/11 link he still maintained Saddam had ties with AlQaeda..)

here

look up the word syllogism in the dictionary.

a page out of Goebbels book.

oh I also wonder why BUsh keeps as a souvenir , the gun that Saddam had when he was captured. Makes it look like a personal vendetta to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM

Teribus couldn't answer this. Perhaps you can Doug. What exactly is the course in Iraq that we should be staying? What is it, specifically, that we brainwashed liberals need to get out of the way so your team can do?

N.B. The word "win" is not a specific answer. We all want that. Likewise "Defeat the Terrorists" is not a specific answer. We all want that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:45 PM

Doug--

"confusing those folks with facts"--uh, you misspelled that--it's actually "engaging in absurd oversimplification, based on a pathetically feeble grasp of history and geopolitics".   Since that's in fact what Teribus--and your good self--do. But of course it's perfectly understandable--you are just following your mighty leader, Mr. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:47 PM

Dougr,..what terrorist threat from Iraq?

How many Iraqis among the 9/11 hijackers?

BUsh himself grudgingly admitted that there was no connection between
Iraq & 9/11 (last fall) But they never stopped saying Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence 4 years ago.

of course once OBL goaded George BUsh into attacking Iraq, there were probably a few more recruits, to his cause.
As I recall back in 2003 the issue was weapons of mass destruction,
whATEVER HAPPENED TO THOSE.
and why didnt GWB attack North Korea then. As one of the axes of evil
(taking aside the fact that an axis doesnt have 3points)

oh I forgot, NK already has the bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:16 PM

Teribus: You're still at it arn't you? Confusing these folks with facts.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more on your assessment of what will happen should we cut and run in Iraq as so many on this forum, and the majority of Democrats want Bush to do. Unfortunately, the liberal press has convinced a majority of the American people of that too.

It hasn't been that long since the Demos were criticizing Bush because he didn't have ENOUGH boots on the ground in Iraq.

The sad thing to me is, I truly believe that all of these anti-Bush people seem to really believe that if we get out of Iraq, the terrorist threat will be over. The result, likely, of the liberal education (read brainwash)the young folks receive today in our educational institutions.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:31 PM

CPA2 was necessary because, although the rank and file had largely gone home, the infrastructure of the Iraqi army remained intact, and large numbers of middle-ranking and senior personnel actually believed that they were going to have a role in the new Iraq, and would continue to be paid.
CPA2 set them right on that score. Which was why so many armouries and depots were then unlocked and left open for any Tom, Dick or Omar to come and do a pick'n'mix. Clever move by the US, eh?
But Terry expects the world to be governed by QRs and seems to have spent his life filling forms, shining his trousers and crawling up the career ladder, and so can't comprehend what the situation is like for anyone who actually has to deal with reality in theatre. In a way he's typical of the sort of woodentops who arrive at Camberley fully expecting the world to run the way they want it to.
What is so galling is that the PSIs at Camberley soon disabuse them of that illusion, but once the woodentops get their tabs, the more ambitious ones realise that such attitudes don't do them any favours, so the lessons are conveniently forgotten.
The really clever ones end up disillusioned and leave. Which is all our loss.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:03 PM

purely administrative instruments? just boxes that had to be crossed?
they certainly did NOT HAVE to be...

you forgot to add that you were wrong about the CPA not disbanding the Army. (We can quibble about whether they may have already disbanded unofficially, but the CPA made it official. Why did they have to do that at all? They could have just left things as they were, it was just adding insult to injury.

What Garner and other US sources who were there (Galbraith) say is that while these people dispersed they were waiting to hear some kind of orders on what they should do next, and Garner had budgeted paying these people and counted on them to help establish security and help rebuild the infrastructure. (Which the US was unable to do with its small force).

These were people after all with families to feed,
as soon as they find out there is no work - thanks to the Americans-
are they more likely or less likely to join the insurgency?

one of the DUMBEST MILITARY DECISIONS OF THE LAST CENTURY!

Second the DeBaathification order #1, is equally dumb. Practically everyone who was a professional in Iraq needed to be in the Baath party to get ahead.

Having grown up in a communist country I know this more than any westerner. Both my father and grandfather were Party members. My father was because he knew had to be to get ahead. My grandfather on the other hand was a believer and card carrying member since 1921,
guess what happened after the war? Suddenly the meetings were full of people who had been good nazi sympathizers, and now were good communists.
So my grandfather tore up his membership card in disgust, (basically shooting himself in the foot and the consequences affected even my father when he tried to enroll in a university)

(also an aside point, while they didnt have to ban the communist party in the soviet union - since everyone knew as you say - they were incompetent - how many people that are in the top echelons of the Russian govt.now were not members of the communist party? PUTIN?

SO coalition order #1. Debaathification, just like order #2 instantly unemployed and alienated a large section of the population.
WHere did those people go? Well, many joined the insurgency and a great deal left the country. A large population of the professional class that are needed to rebuild Iraq have left.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:01 AM

If I listened long enough to you
I'd find a way to believe that it's all true
Knowing that you lied straight faced while I cried
Still I'd look to find a reason to believe. (Tim Hardin)

I think this sums it up for teribus.

If I were him, I too, would be trying to find excuses for sending innocent soldiers to slaughter the innocent civilians of another country.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:42 AM

CPA Orders #1 & #2 were purely administrative instruments, just boxes that had to be crossed.

Issue on May 23rd where and when did the Iraqi Forces formally disband? They didn't because, as you have said yourself, they had already disappeared. There had to be some clear point that the CPA could point to, after which servicemen were no longer "on the books". In actual fact, in reality, the Iraqi Army disbanded itself, the US Government or CPA, had no say in the matter.

CPA Order #1 Was necessary to remove the Ba'athist Party from the political horizon. As the Soviet Union imploded peacefully there was no need to outlaw the Communist Party, it had already demonstrated to the Russian people in the course of 80 years that it was inept, inefficient, corrupt and unworkable. On the otherhand the first thing done in post-war Nazi Germany was an extremely rigorous programme of de-nazification - True? Or do you believe that that too was just as stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:53 PM

Teribus--


As petr points out, you're wrong on disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces.

Situation normal.






And you're still at sea on our other topic. "Out of step?" You really have no clue of the difference between the Royal Navy and Iraq today. Al-Sadr has tried to prevent parts of his "army" from carrying out operations of their own choosing--and failed. It is a CIVIL WAR-- and veering toward chaos. Revenge killings and crimes of opportunity are the order of the day. YOU should read the Guardian article again.

From the Guardian article--"Go around--all the commanders are sitting sipping coffee; it's only the young kids that are fighting now. There are kids carrying 2 guns and they roam the streets looking for their prey." The Guardian article is talking of Sunnis--but if you don't think Shiites do similar things, wake up.

Scenario: I've always liked your house--and you're a Sunni in a Shiite neighborhood (or vice versa). A bunch of us Shiites will come visit you. And you'll be lucky to escape with your life. Do you think we need to clear this with al-Sadr? Use your head. You don't think this happens--more and more? Start thinking.

That's what civil war is. Sorry to say, you confirm your status as a Western military fossil when you talk of "out of step" and "those in command". Al-Sadr's army is not the Royal Navy. It's not even the Mafia. He can order people to kill targets --but he can't stop them from killing even if he wants to.

I repeat: you're going to have to make the effort to break out of your gangster film and Western military mindset if you hope to understand anything about the Iraq situation.

Please try.



And check Peter T's article on the Bush's Real Plan thread. All is not well even in the paradise known as "Kurdistan". Your naivete is charming--but not very sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 02:48 PM

no Teribus you are wrong, the CPA most certainly did disband the Iraqi army (even though it was unnecessary as they had pretty much disbanded)
it was the controversial CPA order #2 scroll down to May 23

(among the dumbest military decisions arguably in the last century..
they sent home and cut off the pay of huge numbers of young men
instantly creating a large cadre of idle, embittered and ARMED men,
who are now unemployed and have to feed their families in some way.)

By the way Garner had budgeted for keeping all these people on the payroll and help with the reconstruction- they could have been put to work cleaning out the garbage from the sewers, getting the electricity up and going etc...

(cpa order #1 was the De-baathification)
which was just as stupid. - how to go about creating conditions for insurgency.
Most Iraqis who wanted to get anywhere had to be Baath party members,
just like people had to be in the COmmunist party in Eastern Europe
- even though they didnt believe any of the doctrine - it was just a way of getting ahead.

So immediately they unemploy 1000s of professionals - who also have to feed their families. Again ideal conditions for insurgency..


By the way, any way you want to look at GEORGE Bush's new strategy -
of SURGING the troops - theres nothing new about it. Its no different than whats already been done. 21,000 troops is not a surge its barely 16% and they already had that many last year. They tried the block by block clear and hold strategy in Baghdad last summer and it didnt work. They also tried twice unsuccessfully to take on the Mahdi army in 04. Basically Bush had to say he was doing something different after the Republicans stunning defeat at the midterms.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 01:45 PM

Eh Ron, I somehow seem to think that disciplinary action within the ranks of Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army should you get a little out of step, would be a tad more drastic and severe than for any member of the Royal Navy who happened to transgress against QRRN. In militia/guerilla/resistance organisations, you tend to do what your told, or pay extremely severe consequences, mainly due to the fact that your very existance depnds on its members obeying orders - or can't you grasp the differences - I think I and most rational people most certainly can.

"I thought that when the U.S. forces invaded Iraq initially, they disbanded the Sunni Army and sent them home with their weapons. Now you say they should have joined the army and the police force from day one." - Dianavan

No dianavan, once again you think wrong. The US did not disband the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Army as a whole did not stand and fight, those that could took the very prudent course of action of just slipping away. Read the Guardian article linked to by Wolfgang. When the Iraqi Government was recruiting for the Police and the Army, the leaders of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq prohibitted any Sunni from joining, the Sunni leaders now realise that this, like not engaging in the political process from the start, was an extremely poor and damaging course of action to follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:57 AM

Teribus is MIA.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:58 PM

teribus - Read the Financial Times:

"In comments to the media in London, where he also met top British officials, Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq's vice president, said Mr Maliki had failed to break his ties with Shia militias and that Washington would only give him a limited time to succeed."

If they are so 'well behaved' as you put it, why the pressure on Al-Maliki?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:48 PM

I answered them in detail with specifics did I not?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:26 PM

What al Sadr's "army" has done since 2004? "Behaved themselves?" Then it's been an unending series of bad dreams that US forces have been constantly frustrated--by Maliki's unwillingness to go along--in any attempt to go after al Sadr. I'm sure the US has had absolutely no problem with al-Sadr--because you say so. The fact that al- Sadr has no problem with Maliki has nothing to do with the fact that al-Sadr has felt up to now that he had Maliki in his pocket--because you say so. And al-Sadr has had no problem with fractious members of his "army"--because you say so. After all it's an "army" and soldiers obey their commanders--because sailors obey them in the Royal Navy.

Anything you say--after all, you've never been wrong about anything so far.

But I hope you start thinking soon. It would be a refreshing change.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 06:38 PM

"Teribus-- "Those in command...."--so sorry to break it to you-- Sadr's "army", SCIRI, etc. are not the Royal Navy. You're going to have to make the effort to break out of your West European military mindset if you hope to understand anything about the Iraq situation."

Well Ron, maybe you can explain to us all who it was stopped the fighting around Najaf in 2004 when the troops of the MNF confronted the Mahdi Army of Al-Sadr. Can you also explain to us why it was that Al-Sadr waited until the Senior Shiite Cleric Al-Sistani was out of the country before he launched his attack on the MNF. Tyhen tell us what happened immediately upon Al-Sistani's return. Tell us what the Mahdi Army has done since - in relation to the Government of Iraq, and the MNF, they've bloody well behaved themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:29 PM

Teribus--


"Those in command...."--so sorry to break it to you-- Sadr's "army", SCIRI, etc. are not the Royal Navy. You're going to have to make the effort to break out of your West European military mindset if you hope to understand anything about the Iraq situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:50 AM

"Had Sunni Arabs engaged and enlisted in the police force and army from day one those units would not now be Shia dominated."

I thought that when the U.S. forces invaded Iraq initially, they disbanded the Sunni Army and sent them home with their weapons. Now you say they should have joined the army and the police force from day one.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:29 AM

Could not disagree more Ron.

The Gist Is:

The Sunni Arab insurrectionists and the Foreign Jihadists Want a "civil war". Having failed to have successfully taken on the "foreign occupying infidels", the Sunni's have been trying to broaden and escalate a conflict that at present they do not have a cat-in-hells chance of winning.

Those in command of the Shia militias know that with every Sunni Arab/Al-Qaeda perpetrated atrocity against the Shia Arab population of Iraq, irrespective of casualties, many, many more Sunni Arabs are killed in sectarian revenge attacks. Pretty shortly Ron, without doing a thing, the internal problem in Iraq vis-a-vis Shia Arabs and Sunni Arabs will have resolved itself. The Sunni Arabs can do something to reverse the trend by halting attacks on Shia Arabs. The big question is - Will they?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:04 AM

Teribus--

See my comments in the other thread. Gist is: you are making the unwarranted assumption that any sheikh or emir controls the violence. It is civil war--devolving more and more into a series of revenge killings.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM

Then the law abidding Sunni Arab had better tell his Sheik/his Emir/his Immam in no uncertain terms that they had better stop encouraging violence and supporting the insurrection and that they had better open a dialogue with the elected Iraqi Government. As the current situation continues, the Sunni Arabs progressively have less and less to bargain with, Al-Sadr fully recognises this. That is why he and his Shia followers will not be goaded into the "civil war" that the Sunni Arabs so desperately want.

If they cannot trust the police force or Iraqi Army they had better start enlisting into it, instead of fighting it. That they should have done from Day 1.

You quote one sentence from the entire article. How about these passages Ron?

1) "He was wrestling with the same dilemma as many Sunni insurgent leaders, beginning to doubt the wisdom of their alliance with al-Qaida extremists.

Another insurgent commander told me: "At the beginning al-Qaida had the money and the organisation, and we had nothing." But this alliance soon dragged the insurgents and then the whole Sunni community into confrontation with the Shia militias as al-Qaida and other extremists massacred thousands of Shia civilians. Insurgent commanders such as Abu Omar soon found themselves outnumbered and outgunned, fighting organised militias backed by the Shia-dominated security forces."

The main inference here Ron, is that if the Sunni Arabs had not initiated the sectarian violence they would never have felt the backlash of the Shia militia.

2) "Abu Omar had proposed encouraging young Sunni men to enlist in the army and the police to redress the sectarian balance. He suggested giving the Americans a ceasefire, in an attempt to stop ministry of interior commandos' raids on his area. Al-Qaida had said no to all these measures; now he wanted other Iraqi insurgent commanders to support him."

Had Sunni Arabs engaged and enlisted in the police force and army from day one those units would not now be Shia dominated.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:20 AM

Teribus--


I quoted the one to which Wolfgang linked. Read it again yourself. Sorry, I have no time to teach you to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

What Guardian article did you read Ron?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:09 PM

From Wolfgang's Guardian article; "The Shia are doing the same" (killing, then selling the victim's house and car). And the Shia are by far the majority except in a few provinces--and have control of the police. As long as a law-abiding Sunni cannot trust the Iraqi police to not kill him--for being a Sunni--there's no rule of law.    But there is a powerful incentive to stay armed--and no incentive to stop the civil war. They can leave Iraq--or carry on til "ethnic cleansing" is complete.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:27 PM

The jihad now is against the Shias, not the Americans (link to GUARDIAN article)

He was more despondent than angry. "We Sunni are to blame," he said. "In my area some ignorant al-Qaida guys have been kidnapping poor Shia farmers, killing them and throwing their bodies in the river. I told them: 'This is not jihad. You can't kill all the Shia! This is wrong! The Shia militias are like rabid dogs - why provoke them?' "...
"At the beginning al-Qaida had the money and the organisation, and we had nothing." ...
"We have been deceived by the jihadi Arabs," he admitted, in reference to al-Qaida and foreign fighters. "They had an international agenda and we implemented it."

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 12:02 PM

El Salvador to send more troops to Iraq

Fri Jan 5, 12:28 AM ET

SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador -
El Salvador will send its eighth contingent of soldiers to
Iraq, the president said Thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM

Nancy Pelosi, December 1998, before Bush "lied":

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM

katlaughing, thanks for the link, a very revealing speech by Clinton delivered 17th February, 1998. Seems awfully similar in content to speeches made by four years later.

I particularly liked the intro:

"So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." Bill Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 11:52 PM

It's always good to cite your source, and provide a link to the complete text: Clinton's speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 10:40 PM

Bill Clinton 1998, before Bush "lied".

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Cruiser
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:33 PM

Good point Little Hawk:

"This was a war launched against a pathetically weak and already fatally wounded opponent who had done nothing to the USA and who was no threat to the USA."

I think Bush thought the same thing. He saw this as his chance to be a big war hero president, a chance to gain some oil, and a chance to help provide oil/construction type jobs to the friends and associates that helped elect him to office.

I really think he "believed" he could accomplish this mission with minimal loss with the help of God's voice guiding him.

Instead, the pathetic fool has ruined the USA in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:30 PM

"Iraqis (Sunni and Shia) who just want the foreign invaders gone."

Wrong. The Shia want the Sunnis gone and the Sunnis want the Shia gone.

All America has done is give them the freedom to kill each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:19 PM

What were the Iraqi no-fly zones all about?

Seems to me they were created because of UN Resolution 688. The US and the UK were the only countrys with the balls to enforce it after France chickened out in 1998 [when Saddam started handing out oil vouchers?].

In 1998 Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to any Iraqi for shooting down and aircraft enforcing the NFZs.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 01:19 PM

Terry, do you honestly, hand on heart, hope to die, believe that Iraq was a threat to the USA. Really?
Do you also believe in Father Christmas and the tooth fairy?
And do you believe the USA was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin?
Honestly, my love, you do deserve a medal for boneheadeness!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM

TIA, excellent post!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 04:55 AM

Little Hawk -"Iraq was never any threat to the USA"

The House Joint Security Committee in the aftermath of the attacks of 911 was tasked with assessing what posed the greatest threat to the United States of America. Note this assessment was carried because the 911 had taken place, it had nothing whatsoever to do with who had carried those attacks out.

At the same time all the intelligence agencies of the United States of America were given the same task.

The scenario they came up with, the greatest threat to the United States of America that was perceived towards the end of 2001 was described as follows. An a-symetric attack, carried out by an international terrorist group armed with some form of weapon, or weapons, of mass destruction, be they chemical, biological or nuclear. The weapons, training and technology being supplied anonymously to that international terrorist group by some rough state in order that the attack could be fingerprintless, incapable of being traced back to source.

When asked to come up with a list of likely candidate rough states the House Joint Security Committee and the Intelligence Agencies came up with Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the top three ranking "rough state" candidates.

Now with all the information you had Little Hawk why would you have said at the end of 2001 that - Iraq was never any threat to the USA.

Also remember, because it does seem to have been conveniently forgotten, that the threat was not just confined to the United States of America but to:
- the interests of the USA
- the allies of the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:27 PM

And they both richly deserve to fail.

Iraq was never any threat to the USA. It was a threat to Iran, Kuwait, and some of its other immediate neighbours back in the 80's until after Desert Storm smashed up most of its army. Then it was no theat even to them.

This was a war launched against a pathetically weak and already fatally wounded opponent who had done nothing to the USA and who was no threat to the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:03 PM

re: Bin Laden and Iraq.
the only thing in common is that OBL goaded GWB into attacking IRaq and and hence getting more recruits to his ISlamist cause, while the US was on its New American Century - lets show the world who's boss Neocon path. (the project of the Islamists just happened to collide with and emboldened the Neocons)

both projects will fail. Georges - shock and awe - became stay the course - and is now surge & pray. (20,000 isnt even a surge its what they had last year and it didnt make any difference).
The islamists will fail because while they may have sympathy in the mideast, the actual recruits are not that many.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:38 PM

"In Iraq at present do you believe that MNF troops are still fighting the war that began in March 2003?"

    No.
    We went to war ostensibly to defeat Saddam's military.
    Mission Accomplished.
    We are still there.
    Clearly something else is going on.

"Who do you believe that the MNF troops are currently fighting?"

    Iraqis (Sunni and Shia) who just want the foreign invaders gone.

    Saddam supporters (largely Sunni) who want the foreigners gone and are afraid of vengeful Shia rule.

    Shia who want the foreigners gone and see them as a roadblock to their desired vengeful rule.

    Regular folks whose loved ones (combatant or non-combatant) have been killed in this war, and have nothing left to live for or lose.

    Miscellaneous gangs who may be shooting at Americans, or simply at each other, but hit Americans, so we gotta fight them too.

      A small number (by the Pentagon's own estimates) of international jihadists who now have no need to sneak into relatively secure foreign countries to kill Americans since we fly them gratis straight to the meat grinder.

    May have missed some but that's a pretty good start at the list dontcha think?

"What other conflicts are ongoing in Iraq?"

    Struggles for power and money between Sunni and Shia, between rival clans, between rival gangs, between rival clerics, between rival corrupt government officials, and between native Iraqis and the foreign jihadists. Again, did I miss any? (Probably).






And your point in posing these questions to me......?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Arne
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:43 PM

Teribus:

1) The course you should be staying

The United States of America plus a coalition involving some 43 other countries intervened militarily in Iraq. I personally thought that on the information available at the time they were perfectly correct in doing so. That having been said, predominantly the United States of America and the United Kingdom started something and they are honour bound and obliged to finish it, not turn and scuttle ignominiously for home the minute that things appear to be getting tough. That is the course you should be staying.

My thoughts on this kind of "we have to see it through" malarkey here.

To be truthful, I don't give a damn what Teribus thought. He can think the moon is made of bleu cheese, but that has no bearing on what we should do. In this particular case, his beliefs just prove him to be a person whose opinions should be assiduously avoided by any sane people passing by.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:46 PM

Hey, I'm not the one spouting "stay the course" and being unable to say what the course is! I'm not the one saying we need to have the balls to "do what needs to be done", and being unable to state what needs to be done!

I'll answer your questions, but it's clear that you cannot answer mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:08 PM

He's definitely getting less coherent, isn't he. The spelling's already suffering, and now the punctuation and syntax are going to pot.
Time for a lie down, Terry. You can wear the stetson again tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:44 PM

TIA,

In Iraq at present do you believe that MNF troops are still fighting the war that began in March 2003?

Who do you believe that the MNF troops are currently fighting?

What other conflicts are ongoing in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:05 PM

So staying the course means finishing "it", and not running from "it"?

And what needs to be done is to realize what we have "actually got involved in"?



How will we know when "it" is finished? Is leaving Iraq running from "it"? Is there no other way to deal with what we "have actually got involved in" than by feeding my nieces and nephews to "it"?


Your description of staying the course, and what we really need to do is fuzzier than a sheep in dandelions.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:22 AM

Er, why Iraq, Terry?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM

TIA,

1) The course you should be staying

The United States of America plus a coalition involving some 43 other countries intervened militarily in Iraq. I personally thought that on the information available at the time they were perfectly correct in doing so. That having been said, predominantly the United States of America and the United Kingdom started something and they are honour bound and obliged to finish it, not turn and scuttle ignominiously for home the minute that things appear to be getting tough. That is the course you should be staying.

2) What exactly is it that "needs to be done"

Specifically if I could answer that I would command a far higher day rate than I do at present and I would have a much larger office and staff. But of one thing I am absolutely certain, no threat to the US will ever be solved by you guys turning and running from it.

Another thing that "you Americans" need to do is come to some form of realisation as to what you have actually got involved in and differentiate between what was identified as a potential threat in 2002 and what continuing threat remains to be dealt with. The latter is very real and should under no circumstances be dismissed lightly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:20 AM

Oh sh*t Tia, youve done it now!

SPECIFICS? Aaaaaarggghhhh!

*G*

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:15 AM

Teribus says to Americans "...you yourselves could not stay the course. You could not, with all your wealth, power and ability do what was needed to be done."

In 120,000 words or less, please explain to an American (with specifics not slogans please):

1) what is the course we should be staying?

2) what exactly is it that "needs to be done"?

Note again please, the request for specifics, not generalities.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:40 AM

Teribus, that lengthy & admittedly very comprehensive post still doesnt explain why Iraq....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:04 AM

if someone said that they were out to destroy me and made some fairly serious moves towards achieving that end - I'd tend to believe that they were serious and I'd do my utmost to destroy them before they succeeded.
Capital stuff! That explains the attacks on Saudi and Pakistani targets, but why Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 06:56 AM

Very good Barry, everything neatly boxed off and looked at selectively in isolation, unfortunately Barry the world does not operate that way.

To answer your question - "What has Iraq & Bin Laden got to do with one another? Another nation did not attack us, Iraq did not attack us & never planned on it."

Here are some excerpts (You can look it up and read the whole thing for yourselves) from Osama Bin Laden's "Fatwa" issued against the USA in 1996:

"It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslims blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq."

"Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary (William Perry) that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."

Or this from his 1998 Fatwa:

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill- treated (and oppressed) -- women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson."

Osama Bin Laden's subsequent rantings (Later Fatwas) invoked total destruction of the United States and it's way of life, this struggle not to cease until the lot of you in the US converted to Islam and lived under Sharia Law.

You state with absolute conviction - "Iraq did not attack us & never planned on it". The first part of that is true in the physical sense, but it had and did attack US interests. What causes you to believe that the latter part of was correct? The Joint House Security Committee and the combined Intelligence and Security Agencies of the United States of America evaluated this possibility at length and came to completely the opposite conclusion.

I really would like to hear your explanation as to why it would have been absolutely impossible for Saddam Hussein to furnish an international terrorist group with a chemical or biological weapon for use against the US in some sort of spectacular way. The attack would be fingerprintless, particularly if it could be shown superficially that Saddam was opposed to such fundamentalist groups likely to carry-out such an attack.

By the way Barry and all my apologies regarding the typo "finestest" I'll try harder next time.

As a complete and utter outsider I gave you my opinion on how I thought things would turn out as the worst possible case should the US decide to "Cut and Run" as advocated by General Odem.

"we are peacefully fighting for a peace & for an end to an unjust war, that's what's worth fighting for" - All very laudable, unfortunately your enemy now no longer sees it that way, he has transfixed himself on your complete destruction. It no longer matters what you do, what concessions you make, he will still come after you. The only option you have is to attack, pursue and harry your enemies, until such time as he sees that the game is not worth the candle.

As for credibility with regard to matters relating to the defence of the United States of America, it's global interests and it's allies. Your stock in the world has never been higher. In the immediate post-Vietnam era, any threat of action by the US was met behind closed doors with howls of derision. Any threat of action made now, people the world over pay heed and react with immense care.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about - The storming of the US Embassy in Tehran. That happened post-Vietnam during Carter's Presidency. Could you envisage anybody attempting such a stunt today? It would be all over within six hours, the perpetrators killed plus those who sent them severly damaged if not completely destroyed.

Weak willed? Don't think so. Again Carter was weak willed and lacked credibility, GWB on the otherhand is not and has proven that when faced with tough decisions he will take them and be fully prepared to see them through - that is what is called leadership.

"So what is it you're asking us to fight for, to send our kids to die for?" - Well Barry if you believe anything your self-declared enemy has said over and over since 1993 - Your very lives and your way of life. You might laugh, but personally if someone said that they were out to destroy me and made some fairly serious moves towards achieving that end - I'd tend to believe that they were serious and I'd do my utmost to destroy them before they succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Stu
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:23 AM

One thing about Teribus is he's consistent and reflects the world view of many of the people in power. His arguments hold a lot of water in many circles, and the policy wonks and butt-lickers in Westminster would concur with much of what he says - how else do you explain UK foreign policy?


"Sorry, you must be against US if you're not with US" Tell me this is a joke. Please let this be a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:56 AM

Careful Barry, you'll upset the poor lad. He grew up when the world was square-jawed and seen in black and white. He hasn't yet come to terms with shades of grey, so an onslaught like that is likely to result in all the toys being thrown across the room!
Look, if Terry really wants to play cowboys, let him strap on the six-gun and wear the stetson until bed time. He'll be much better after a good night's sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:32 AM

"The United States of America was attacked and will continue to be attacked whether or not you are involved in Iraq or not. That was a promise made by one Osama Bin Laden over 13 years ago."

What has Iraq & Bin Laden got to do with one another? Another nation did not attack us, Iraq did not attack us & never planned on it.

"As a complete and utter outsider I will tell you how I think things will turn out as the worst possible case"

As a complete and utter outsider you cannot begin to know or tell us what we've already lost & what we are about to lose. It's like telling a mother you know how she feels when she's lost her child. Unless you've lost one you will never know how she feels.

This not our "finestest hour" (grin) but our "worstest hour" (grin,grin)

"Always remember everything you have in life is worth fighting for"

True, we are peacefully fighting for a peace & for an end to an unjust war, that's what's worth fighting for

"The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again. Internationally you will be a laughing stock. You will have proved to the world that you are the weak willed, indecisive "middling power" that the General referred to. Certainly no-one will ever look towards the US to provide any sort of leadership in any crisis in the future."

We now have no credibility in the world & we have none at home! We lost that won/one a while back!

Not only is our president the laughing stock abroad he is at home too! Yes, we are tired of it & quite embrassed about it too! We are now trying to fix that!

Yes our leaders are weak willed, there's no denying that!

And yes we understand that our leadership will not be look upon as favorable in the future. It's that way now & has been for at least the past 6 years!
We are trying to fix that too, thank you.

So what is it you're asking us to fight for, to send our kids to die for?   
Sorry, you must be against US if you're not with US. We fight for the America that could & should be not the tragic junkie crack whore that we've become.
And you think as a "complete and utter outsider" you know how we feel? You don't understand US at all nor have any idea about how we feel. You are a dinosaur, a living fossil of a time long gone, a John Wayne or Dick Tracy, a comic relief, an example of why wars are the last resort of imbeciles, you are Tedious & you do not know US!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:20 AM

Hardly, teribus, its not just the vote that counts but the dog eat dog attitude that is shared by you and others in this world.

I didn't say you had a vote, I said, " "Thanks to people like you, teribus, for giving them the power."

I hope to see you when I'm protesting the war in Iraq. I'm sure you'll be one of the guys waving the sign that says: Support our Troops!

I'll have to say that at this time, I do not support our troops.

I do, however, want them home safe and sound.

Maybe, unlike VietNam, these returning soldiers will be given medical, educational and housing benefits while they recover.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:22 AM

Oops, almost got sucked in. Don't you fellahs ever get tired of the back and forth with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:16 PM

Teribus--

It's obvious your "finestest (sic) hour" is every time you post here (at least in your mind).

But it's hard to imagine how anyone could be as detached from reality as you are.

Even your terminology is wildly off. I suppose that your history as a matelot must be one of the reasons you are so far at sea--have no clue what is really going on.

Sorry--"insurgency" is a bit old hat now--superseded by events. Most objective commentators these days are aware the situation in Iraq--especially in Baghdad--where the main focus is now--is not so much the "insurgency" trying to topple the "government" as just sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis--more and more taking the cast of revenge killings.

It's this which has to stop--and will never stop--,( as I've been saying for over a year--and you have been refusing to acknowledge)--unless the Sunnis can trust the police. For a long time you gave the distinct impression that the Sunnis should just learn to" live with the situation", aware the shoe is now on the other foot--they are no longer in charge. Do I have to cite chapter and verse from your own collected works?

And by the way, please be so good as to tell us how long you would be willing to " live with the situation" if you were targeted by your police--for the crime of being Protestant, Catholic, English, Welsh, Irish, Scots etc.--irrespective of what you had personally done.

Also, so sorry to have to break it to you (again)--Bush is not Churchill. You really need to have your vision checked. I could recommend a good optician, but unfortunately he's in the US.

Hope you're able to deal with your psychological and physical problems soon.

Looking forward to another of your classic postings--but perhaps one that makes a bit more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Arne
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM

Teribus said:

Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the terms outlined by the General will only mean one thing to the armed forces of the United States of America - defeat -...

Piffle. We got over Vietnam ... perhaps a tad too soon.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Arne
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:34 PM

Teribus said:

You will have proved to the world that you are the weak willed, indecisive "middling power" that the General referred to....

Teribus is of the opinion that one is measured by ... the willingness to use their "gun".

Doesn't matter that everyone can see Iraq as a disaster. Doesn't matter that getting troops out of Iraq can only improve things. Doesn't matter that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. What matters is "manly pride", Don't ask for directions, don't ever admit you're wrong, don't refuse a fight, and don't back down ... ever. If you do, you obviously have a small one.

Of course, in the real world, we see that it is often the wisest thing to re-evaluate, to admit a mistake. Maybe even avoid a fight, if it doesn't concern you. And to know when enough's enough. There's a saying: "There's old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots." The best pilots don't take unnecessary risks, and don't put themselves in the bulls-eye to show how macho they are. They just do what they have to do ... and no more. Dubya got his flight status revoked.

And in the real world, we see sometimes that the biggest ... jerks ... are not the ones with the big ones, rather the opposite. Insecurity is a very dangerous thing.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:12 PM

"Thanks to people like you, teribus, for giving them the power."

Hardly dianavan, giving power to those you refer to is way beyond my gift, having no vote in the USA.

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

Wake up Mr. T. - The hour has arrived.

You fear, "The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again. Internationally you will be a laughing stock."

Bush has already guaranteed that. Most, however, are not laughing. Most would like the U.S. to return to its former glory. However, with the neo-conservatives in power, such ideals as human rights, compassion and democratic freedom are all but forgotten.

Thanks to people like you, teribus, for giving them the power.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:29 AM

My pleasure Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:21 AM

Now we know what motivates Teribus!

You usually find my posts a hoot....well thanks for the chuckle...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:50 AM

katlaughing, Lt. Gen. William E. Odom is talking out of his rear end, he could not possibly be more wrong. If the US cuts and runs from the situation that it is in now there will be a number of extremely serious consequences:

- The US will never have any credibility in the world ever again. Internationally you will be a laughing stock. You will have proved to the world that you are the weak willed, indecisive "middling power" that the General referred to. Certainly no-one will ever look towards the US to provide any sort of leadership in any crisis in the future.

- Your "professional", volunteer armed forces will never again trust the population or government. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq on the terms outlined by the General will only mean one thing to the armed forces of the United States of America - defeat - The lesson that will burn itself into the minds of every serving soldier, sailor, marine and airman will be that less than 20,000 poorly armed irregulars took on and defeated the best trained and best equipped army in the world simply because the population and politicians in the United States lost faith and lacked the will to back them up. The only battles they will fight on your behalf in future will be fought on American soil where they can see you in the front lines fighting alongside them - I could not say that I would blame them for adopting that attitude. It took the US military over twenty years to recover from the defeat suffered at the hands of the Vietcong, they will not recover from the defeat against the insurgents in Iraq inflicted upon them by their own politicians and population.

- Emboldened by your defeat in Iraq, the battle against the USA, declared by Al-Qaeda way back in the early 1990's will arrive at your doorstep. There is no negotiating with this enemy, their intent was clearly stated a long time ago, they are determined and willing. To cut and run as detailed by the General in the face of this attack will only demonstrate to your enemies that the politicians and population of the US are not. How many terrorist attacks have occurred in the USA since the 11th of September 2001? Withdraw from Iraq as described by the General above, then watch the attacks fall thick and fast.

- NATO, the only effective and efficient international military alliance in the world, will disintegrate, because it will have absolutely no credibility. No-one will trust the United States to have the integrity to live up to it's commitments.

- The United Nations will become even less significant than it is today. Like it's predecessor, "The League of Nations", without a powerful and forthright United States of America the UN will become equally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:32 AM

".......this is the situation that the UK was faced with in 1940 and was described by Winston Churchill as being "Their Finestest Hour"...."

Eh???

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:52 AM

From Bloomberg:

Anthony Cordesman, an analyst at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he expected that ``almost all of the fighting in Baghdad'' will fall to U.S. troops.

``This is presented as an Iraqi plan with Iraqi forces in the lead and the U.S. in support,'' Cordesman said. ``The reality is it's an American plan where the U.S. forces are in the lead, and it is unclear how much support U.S. forces are going to get.''

I'd say that Bush is getting faulty intelligence if he thinks Maliki will turn against Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:05 AM

Teribus--you have more serious problems than I thought. Not only does Bush see Churchill when he looks in the mirror--but you also see Churchill when you look at Bush. I won't waste my time explaining the differences to you--but maybe you'll wake up eventually from your time warp and start recognizing reality. We can hope.

However: re: Maliki--excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by his statement--yet again--that he will purge ALL the militias from the police.

Talk is cheap. We've heard this before. The results speak for themselves. Much as it may pain you, something beyond words would be nice this time--since, contrary to what you once said, all Iraqi Sunnis are not the equivalent of hardline Nazis in 1945.

Maliki says (again) that he will purge the police of militias. As that great and respected foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain -- (surely you're familiar with her view)-- said "That don't impress me much."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:03 AM

Cut and Run? You Bet.

By Lt. Gen. William E. Odom


Why America must get out of Iraq now

Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of "red state" citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.

The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, U.S. President George W. Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let's consider his administration's most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.

If we leave, there will be a civil war. In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam. Any close observer could see that then; today, only the blind deny it. Even President Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war.

Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists. True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers - precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with one choice: Surrender, or ally with al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.

Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up. The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr's Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.

Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops. Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.

Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world. Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world's only superpower, it's patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world's opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history. The United States now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. I served as a military attache in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow during Richard Nixon's Watergate crisis. When Nixon resigned, several Soviet officials who had previously expressed disdain for the United States told me they were astonished. One diplomat said, "Only your country is powerful enough to do this. It would destroy my country."

Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.

In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.

None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the "big sandy" of Iraq. America must withdraw now.

Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor at Yale University. He was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:07 PM

The seventy billion came from our military. You can listen to the same broadcast I heard at Military Commanders Wary of Increase in Troops. Here's the lead-in quote: ..tanks, weapons, helicopters - will exceed $70 billion. But it's not just the money, it's the strain on the force itself that worries senior military officials. Here's retired Major....

Teribus, As a complete and utter outsider maybe you should butt out.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:18 PM

Oh yes by all means katlaughing let's turn the clock back. Only trouble is that you can't. The United States of America was attacked and will continue to be attacked whether or not you are involved in Iraq or not. That was a promise made by one Osama Bin Laden over 13 years ago. Most on this forum seem to have forgotten that.

Now let's take a look at the choices open to the great unwashed American people:

The Democrats 2006 election promises that they would end the "war" and bring the troops back home is an empty promise - those attacking you will not subscribe to that thinking. You will continue to be attacked, nothing whatsoever to do with GWB, this was your enemies agenda long before he came to power.

Having "won" the mid-term 2006 elections the Dems have inherited a bit of responsibility for the safety and security of their country. They can no longer pose and posture about this issue, they have to take upon their own shoulders in extremely real terms the real responsibilty for the security of their country. They can no longer pander to populist myths and lies. It is now their responsibility. Let's see how much things change if their line of thought can be brought to prevail.

As a complete and utter outsider I will tell you how I think things will turn out as the worst possible case. You lot will bottle out of it. The one and only super-power on earth will lose, not because of the resilience of your foes, but because you yourselves could not stay the course. You could not, with all your wealth, power and ability do what was needed to be done in the face of what you perceived to be as insurmountable odds. By the way for all you who have any pride in your country this is the situation that the UK was faced with in 1940 and was described by Winston Churchill as being "Their Finestest Hour". Judging by what most of you post on this forum, your finest hour will be marked by capitulation, you will richly deserve everything that comes your way. Always remember everything you have in life is worth fighting for - That I think most of you have forgotten, you have come to believe that what you have you have as a birthright - you don't and there are those that will teach you that very lesson - wake up to fact and deal with it, before it is too late, because once it is gone it will never again be recaptured.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:25 PM

Where did this figure of 70 Billion dollars come from?

Is it US billions (1000 million) or UK billions (100 million)?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:47 PM

Why no comment on the Dems reaction to Bush's escalation of the war?

This forum seems to be swarming with Dems, does it not destroy your faith in the political process when your Party is elected with a mandate to get the troops home, then seems happy to go along with further escalation.

Time to wake up, Young lives are worth more than jobs for the politicians.
WE are achieving nothing in Iraq other than assisting the setting up of an Islamic republic, is that worth one more young soldiers life??

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM

No kidding, ard. Sure wish we could, only back to before the shrub had any inkling of getting close to the WHite House, with people remembering how they feal baout his policies now!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 04:20 PM

Bush wants to target the Mahdi Army whose leader is an ally of Maliki.

This is getting more confusing all the time.

One thing for certain, Bush is no match for the leaders of the Middle East. His strategies have failed because he does not begin to understand their socio-political relationships. In fact, any attempt to apply Western logic to the Middle East is doomed to failure. Pretty soon the whole country will turn on the U.S. troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 02:01 PM

Katslaughing if only they could turn the clock back.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 01:25 PM

The cost in lives and our money is too high no matter what. I heard on the radio today it will take 70 billion dollars to repair/replace all of our military equipment which has been damaged or lost while being used in Iraq.

"Iraq
At a Glance: Boosting Troop Levels in Iraq

by Guy Raz

    * There are 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. About half of them are part of brigade combat teams which are made up, largely, of what you might think of as "trigger pullers" or infantry soldiers.
    * Each brigade combat team consists of about 3,500 soldiers.
    * When the Pentagon talks about a troop increase, it thinks in terms of brigade combat teams — not in terms of individual troops.
    * There are 15 brigade combat teams in Iraq right now and one Marine expeditionary unit. For simplicity's sake, a Marine expeditionary unit can be thought of as roughly equivalent in size to an Army brigade combat team.
    * Currently, the entire U.S. Army has 39 brigade combat teams, though the numbers fluctuate. There are 15 combat teams in Iraq now, and three in Afghanistan, which leaves 21 elsewhere. President Bush would increase the long-term size of the U.S. force in Iraq by four or five combat teams. That means under his so-called "surge" plan, there would be as many as 20 combat teams in Iraq.
    * The Army will achieve this boost in troop levels through extensions and accelerations of troop deployments.
    * Once a year (usually around January or March), the Army rotates most combat teams out of Iraq and replaces them with fresh teams coming from the United States or from bases in Germany, South Korea or Japan.
    * But in order to stabilize troop levels in Iraq at 20 combat teams, plus other military personnel (which would amount to about 155,000 or 160,000 troops in total), the U.S. military will have to shift the way troops are currently deployed. That means slowing down departures from and speeding up deployments to Iraq.
    * In theory, soldiers are supposed to serve in Iraq for a year, then return to their home base for at least two years before their next deployment. In practice, many soldiers are getting just a one-year break between deployments to Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

ac·qui·esced, ac·qui·esc·ing, ac·qui·esc·es
To consent or comply passively or without protest.

al-Maliki had not consented or complied passively or without protest to a reported White House plan to send as many as 9,000 more U.S. troops to Baghdad alone.

This does not translate to Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops and it is not from al-Maliki himself. Therefore it is fiction.

"in a speech on Saturday he vowed to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics.""

There is no military draft in the US either.


Reuters Tuesday, January 09, 2007
BAGHDAD, Jan 9 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government would welcome an increase in U.S. troop numbers in Baghdad expected to be announced on Wednesday by President George W. Bush, the government spokesman said on Tuesday.

As U.S. and Iraqi forces clashed with gunmen in central Baghdad, Ali al-Dabbagh said in the first official comment by the government on the expected U.S. move that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed Bush's new strategy on Iraq.

"The Iraqi government does not object to an increase in coalition forces. The Iraqi government supports this trend," Dabbagh told a news conference.

Not far from the heavily fortified Green Zone compound where Dabbagh spoke, U.S. and Iraqi forces battled insurgents in Haifa Street, a stronghold of the Sunni Arab insurgency.

U.S. fighter jets screamed over the city with unusual intensity and military helicopters were seen hovering above Haifa Street, witnesses said.

Battling growing sectarian violence, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has announced a major security plan for Baghdad, vowing to crack down on violence on all sides.

Dabbagh said the raid in Haifa Street was aimed at eliminating "terrorist hideouts" and said U.S. and Iraqi forces would avoid "mistakes" made in past plans to secure Baghdad, which is seen a key to pacifying the rest of Iraq.

"Any failure ... would lead to grave consequences and disasters. We can not accept failure," he said.

Bush told U.S. lawmakers he has decided to send about 20,000 more troops to Iraq in a plan to be announced on Wednesday.

The White House said Bush, who is reshuffling his commanders and diplomats in Iraq, would address Americans on his new Iraq plan on Wednesday at 9 p.m. (0200 GMT Thursday).

Gordon Smith, one of Bush's fellow Republicans, was among senators who attended a White House meeting to discuss the president's emerging strategy for Iraq, which Democrats have called an escalation of the war.

Smith said Bush told him and several other senators that the plan for the additional troops had originated with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki had made commitments that the Iraqi government and military would take steps to strengthen security in exchange for more U.S. troops, Smith said.

Seeking to salvage the U.S. mission in an unpopular war nearly four years after the invasion, Bush's new plan is also expected to include setting "benchmarks" for Maliki to meet, aimed at easing sectarian violence and stabilising the country.

It is also expected to contain a job creation programme for Iraqis likely to cost more than $1 billion.

Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, has so far resisted U.S. pressure to crack down on militias loyal to his fellow Shi'ites, which the United States has said are the most serious threat to Iraq. But in a speech on Saturday he vowed to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics."

A new clandestine video posted on the Internet showed the body of Saddam Hussein lying on a hospital trolley with a vivid red wound in his throat after being hanged.

The 27-second clip, seen on Tuesday, showed a sheet being removed to reveal Saddam's neck severely twisted and with a smear of blood on his left cheek.            

It was the third illicit film of Saddam's demise to emerge since he was hanged on Dec. 30 in an execution that inflamed sectarian passions in Iraq and attracted      

Iraq's Shi'ite-led government, which says it is struggling to avert an all-out sectarian civil war, is investigating another illicit film showing Shi'ite officials taunting Saddam on the gallows that has sparked anger among Saddam's fellow minority Sunni Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:42 AM

Donuel,

I did like, "The urge to surge by the scourge...". Had a really good chuckle at that. The rest of the post I thought was twaddle.

"If a nuclear device should explode in the region, the white house is prepared to immediately blame Iran, no matter who is respondsible."

Now what on earth is your rational behind that declaration?

Oh Ard, I don't believe that there is anybody anywhere outside of Anbar and Sullahadin Provinces who would wish to see Saddam Hussein back in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:28 AM

The urge to surge by the scourge of the free world is only a vehicle for our beloved president to save face. 20,000 troops or 40,000 lives is cheap at half the price just as long as our decider is happy. Granted it is a pathetic little face to save but it is the face of our vast defense contractor's have - not the face they might wish to have.

More troops are not the whole story. We have now parked a nuclear aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. It is a win win situation whether it is fired upon, sunk or gives support to our troops, many of whom are now on their fourth deployment. An attack against a US ship (imagined or not) has been the standard to escalate several US war adventures in the past.

If a nuclear device should explode in the region, the white house is prepared to immediately blame Iran, no matter who is respondsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 08:14 AM

As long as only former Bush advisors see this and not the guy himself, there is little hope.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: ard mhacha
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 07:51 AM

Wolfgang there is quite a lot of people in the US would like to see Saddam back in office, the naive people who advised Bush now see the hell hole they are in and it looks like they will regret this until they turn tail and get out.
There will be a bloodbath if they get out?, that is what is taking place now.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 07:24 AM

I slowly develop a feeling that I never thought could enter my mind: a nostalgic longing to see Rumsfeld back in office:

Taking the US troops out of the danger areas and daily patrols and only use them for some time as a last resort in case of threats the Iraqi government cannot deal with was not such a bad idea in comparison to what happens now. It even could have been a start for a much better policy of rare (I don't dare to hope for: no) intervention.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 05:49 AM

The man must have changed his mind according to Reuters:

"Iraq would welcome more U.S. troops

20,000 more on the way, Bush says

Reuters
Published: Tuesday, January 09, 2007
BAGHDAD, Jan 9 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government would welcome an increase in U.S. troop numbers in Baghdad expected to be announced on Wednesday by President George W. Bush, the government spokesman said on Tuesday.

As U.S. and Iraqi forces clashed with gunmen in central Baghdad, Ali al-Dabbagh said in the first official comment by the government on the expected U.S. move that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed Bush's new strategy on Iraq.

"The Iraqi government does not object to an increase in coalition forces. The Iraqi government supports this trend," Dabbagh told a news conference.

Battling growing sectarian violence, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has announced a major security plan for Baghdad, vowing to crack down on violence on all sides.

Gordon Smith, one of Bush's fellow Republicans, was among senators who attended a White House meeting to discuss the president's emerging strategy for Iraq, which Democrats have called an escalation of the war.

Smith said Bush told him and several other senators that the plan for the additional troops had originated with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki had made commitments that the Iraqi government and military would take steps to strengthen security in exchange for more U.S. troops, Smith said.

Seeking to salvage the U.S. mission in an unpopular war nearly four years after the invasion, Bush's new plan is also expected to include setting "benchmarks" for Maliki to meet, aimed at easing sectarian violence and stabilising the country.

It is also expected to contain a job creation programme for Iraqis likely to cost more than $1 billion.

Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, has so far resisted U.S. pressure to crack down on militias loyal to his fellow Shi'ites, which the United States has said are the most serious threat to Iraq. But in a speech on Saturday he vowed to crush illegal armed groups "regardless of sect or politics."

Oh, and has that bastion of the Dems, Teddy (mind-that-bridge) Kennedy painted himself and his party into a corner? If he proceeds unmuzzled as he is he may very well hand the 2008 election to the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 12:08 AM

As I've said before, this is the wrong question. The real question is whether Maliki will purge the police of Shiite militias or not. ( There's no more danger of Saddam being restored to power.) Now is the time for Maliki to make that move in the police. If he doesn't, he's squandered a great opportunity. If the Sunnis cannot trust the police, there will never be peace in Iraq (what's left of it, now that "Kurdistan" is de facto independent.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:20 PM

Pedant alert.

The correct original quote that Ake. alludes to is

   "Love of money is the root of all evil."

   Return any variant to the manufacturer as faulty.





   For the rest,anyone got any ideas how to get the West to change policy in this mother of all cock-ups?






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:57 PM

No, quite literally, the common or garden variety

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM

The genetically modified parsnip??

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:36 PM

... and the root of all evil is the parsnip

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:34 PM

Nice to see you've calmed down, now exactly what misinformation did I post?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:31 PM

Alot of people voted but not for democracy or anything like democracy.

And by the way ,I was a Communist in my youth as were many others, but am no longer a party member.
I have come to see thatif we are to survive on this planet it will be due in no part to political organisation.
In saying that, I still believe Capitalism to be the "root of all evil"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 05:07 PM

What misinformation did I post?

I made two statements
1) Maliki has not asked the US to withdraw.
2) A lot of people voted.

Tell me which of these is false.

and one question,

Irrespective of the rights and wrong of going into Iraq should we really abandon them?

On this you're allowed an opinion, that was the point of me asking the question. Unfortunately you chose to read between the lines instead of what was on them. Not a good indication of your academic prowess is it?

I never said I was in favour of the war.

As I said, an old commie loony left who can't face that he's lost in the west (you say as much in your linked post).

You have nothing to teach anybody about democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:51 PM

No need to rant Guest, just so long as I can call you when you post misinformation.
During the Iraqi elections, while people like you were gushing over a "new democratic dawn", I posted THIS

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:12 PM

Ah, the eternal communist who's seen his beloved system destroyed and believes my enemy's enemy is my friend. Politics is about power, democracy is about power. Nothing in my original post is false and you know it. You have nothing to teach anybody about democracy, you just don't like the results that democracy brings, whether they're tories or democratic socialists or whatever. Your stalinist views are out of date. Rant on as much as you want on this forum, you lost. Whether the next UK government is red, blue or whatever colour the liberals are these days, they would all have similar policies none of which will be from the loony adolescent left. Rant on.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 07:37 PM

Wrong guest.... They voted on straight sectarian lines for POWER.

And that is as undemocratic a system as you can get.

Take off the shades and try to understand what is really happening in Iraq....Or is your post just a continuation of the spin and lies which got us involved in the first place??

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Overhead
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM

Neither has Maliki asked the US (plus others) to leave. Irrespective of the rights and wrong of going into Iraq should we really abandon the 9 million people who voted, under the threat of death, for their own government.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 04:00 PM

Looks as if this will be a good test for the Democrats....Yes, the same Dems who were going to impeach Bush.
Will they swallow their "principles" and give him the money. My guess is they will ...in fuckin' sackfulls.

Of course the future of the Democratic Party is at stake.
They don't want to appear "un-American".
What do the lives of a couple of hundred young soldiers and a few thousand Iraqis mean compared to THAT ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 10:37 AM

We'll spit thru the streets of the cities we wreck
And we'll find you a leader that you can elect
Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck...

We'll smash down your doors, we don't bother to knock
We've done it before, so why all the shock?
We're the biggest & the toughest kids on the block...

We own half the world, oh say can you see?
And the name for our profits is dee-mocracy
So like iot or not, you will have to be free

'Cause we're the cops of the world boys,
We're the cops of the world.

Phil would have had a field day with this shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM

Maliki sold out for a measly billion? I wonder what else was in the package?

Yeah right! U.S. contractors hire the Iraqis to clean, repair and paint the damage done by the U.S. Pentagon-run? Does that mean KBR or Haliburton.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: katlaughing
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:24 PM

While the business orgs. in the US bitch about the Democrats wanting to raise the minumum wage, I've heard nothing from them about Bush and this costly plan of his:

The other sweetener will be a doubling of reconstruction efforts. Up to $1bn is to be spent on a programme in which Iraqis are employed to clean the streets and repair and paint schools.

The Pentagon-run scheme would try to draw young men away from insurgent groups and back into the mainstream economy. It would be administered by officials embedded in US combat brigades in a bid to persuade Iraqis that the Americans were there as a force for good and not just of occupation.

Seems the idiot, true to form, underestimates everyone elses' intelligence. He probably thinks they are all like him.

I had to dig a bit to find this news item. if you want to read the whole thing, CLICK HERE.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM

The Americans unleashed this monster long before Mr Bush when they brought together the most fanatical Islamic fighters they could find and armed them and trained them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. That was in the 1980's, during Reagan's term of office. The Mujahedin people promoted by America to bleed the Soviets white became the future Taliban and Al Queda. The long term results have been catastrophic for moderate Islamic people everywhere, for 3000 people in New York (and their families), for the Russians, for Afghanistan, for Iraq, and for America. Bush wins the booby prize for having initiated the final culminating horror of what has been, from the beginning, a totally misguided policy. No one has benefited from it thus far, except perhaps Iran whose position has been strenthened by the almost complete demolition of their greatest regional rival...Iraq. If Iran has benefited, it has been merely by default, not by intention.

It has, however, been a brilliantly successful policy if you want is this: perpetual war and a perpetual market for high tech weaponry and munitions. Maybe its planners were not so stupid after all. It depends on what they had in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 09:15 PM

Good guess.

Subject: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jan 07 - 08:44 PM

So Bush is expected to ask Congress for more money and more troops in spite of the the report that says it was faulty intelligence that led him there in the first place. Bush claims that Iraq has a democratically elected government so lets see if he respects the man who has replaced Saddam as leader of Iraq.

From Assc. Press:

"Al-Maliki is uneasy about the possible introduction of more U.S. troops, aides said, and he has repeatedly refused U.S. demands to crush the militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the prime minister's most powerful backers.

Sami al-Askari, an al-Maliki political adviser, told The Associated Press on Friday that al-Maliki had not acquiesced to a reported White House plan to send as many as 9,000 more U.S. troops to Baghdad alone."

My guess is that Bush is terrified of the monster he has unleashed.