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

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 - 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,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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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,Homey
Date: 04 Dec 07 - 11:50 PM

Oops, that was me.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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.