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

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.