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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:32 PM

And 500 !!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Leadfingers
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:32 PM

It would be a lot better if all the American troops stayed home within easy reach of their families , wouldnt it ?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

The alternative is not to declare war on terrorists unless you have the support of the government whose nation you are invading. It is up to each nation to deal with the terrorists in their country as criminals. Don't bother invading because you will lose without popular support. The people of the country will become terrorists in an effort to rid their nation of occupation by a foreign power. In other words, you can never win a war on terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:37 PM

I note Dianavan that you propose no alternatives, you can knock but you are incapable of constructive though. Somewhat like Ron - clueless.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:48 PM

"Promote a culture of war so that our young men will be gainfully employed and off the streets and make big money for the arms dealers and reconstructionists. Create an atmosphere of fear so that the general public will support it."

Iran in a nutshell.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:39 AM

Gee, teribus, if what you say is true, "The "War on Terror" will only ever stop once you have convinced rogue governments that it is "suicide" for them to support international terrorist groups, and once you have convinced the terrorist groups and their supporters that whatever their game, it will not be worth the candle. Takes a long time Ron, but in all cases - its worth it," the U.S. and Britain will be at war forever.

Who's next, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt? In fact, most countries in the world support terrorist groups - Israel, Lebanon, the U.S., etc. Some are more covert, thats all. Seems like a make work project to me.

Promote a culture of war so that our young men will be gainfully employed and off the streets and make big money for the arms dealers and reconstructionists. Create an atmosphere of fear so that the general public will support it. Worth it? To whom? Its not worth it to anyone who's loved one has been killed, wounded or emotionally damaged by war. For what? Fear of a phantom enemy on some distant shore?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:41 AM

A Question from Ron:
"The UK army is leaving Iraq--long before the US. What's your view of that?"

No change in UK Foreign policy by the way Ron. The UK is doing exactly what they said they would do from Day 1.

Why are they in a position to leave?

1) UK Forces after the initial battles were, in general, welcomed by the local population.
2) UK Forces have a far better understanding of what a "Hearts and Minds" policy requires and how to deliver it in a sustained manner.
3) Different "softer" patrolling strategy. Our guys seem a lot more approachable and are more willing to make personal contact with the locals than US Forces seem to be.
4) They were in a position to demonstrate clearly to the local population that they were there to help very early on.
5) Southern part of Iraq is predominantly Shiia. Therefore the UK Forces have never had to counter the Ba'athist insurgents and sectarian violence that the US Forces in the central areas have had to face.
6) When faced with hostile situations UK Forces have shown a great deal more restraint than US Forces in similar situations.
7) All the above have allowed the UK contingent of the MNF to wind down their presence in Iraq dramatically compared to US Forces in the central areas. UK strength in Iraq fell from about 34,000 at the start to below 10,000 very quickly.

I am very pleased that the number of troops is being reduced. I am pleased that they are returning to the UK, I believe that they have done a superb job under extremely difficult circumstances. I do not know what the political agreements were or what the force tasking schedule was but there must be some reason why they are not being redeployed within Iraq to further reinforce and support US Forces in the central areas. Coupled with that, it must be remembered that well over half of Iraq's eighteen provinces are now under full control of the Iraqi Government.

Now Ron about those questions I asked, the ones you seem unable to answer:

Part A: "How do you end the "War on Terror"?"
No answer offered by Ron. Islamic fundamentalists object strongly to the USA for the following reasons:
- Support for Israel as required by UN Charter and UNSC Resolutions and as also required by the bilateral defence treaty between Israel and the USA.
- Providing the Mujihadeen with the expertise and means to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan (Same as the French have never forgiven you for liberating them in 1944).
- That it was a US led coalition that expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, after their offer to Saudi Arabia to do the same job was turned down.

The above reasons Ron are why the Islamic fundamentalist Terrorist groups attack the United States of America - Nothing to do with the Taleban/Afghanistan and 2001 - Nothing to do with the US leading a coalition into Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The US has been firmly in the cross-hairs of one particular group since the late 1980's/early 1990's. And Ron it doesn't matter if you get out of Iraq, it doesn't matter if you get out of Afghanistan, they are still going to attack you. By getting out you hand over the initiative to them, at the moment the MNF and ISAF forces along with the national security services of both Iraq and Afghanistan are picking the battles and generally winning them. The "War on Terror" will only ever stop once you have convinced rogue governments that it is "suicide" for them to support international terrorist groups, and once you have convinced the terrorist groups and their supporters that whatever their game, it will not be worth the candle. Takes a long time Ron, but in all cases - its worth it.

Part B: "Who do you negotiate with?"
Here is an example of Ron's english comprehension. When asked three simple questions, split into Parts A, B & C in this post Ron comes back with the following which he sincerely believes is an answer -

"I've told you, more than once, "negotiation" will wait until after the "surge" is over--and most US troops are gone."

That "peace-Monger" Ron, ould son, answers WHEN will you negotiate, it does not answer a single point put to you.

Simple fact of the matter is Ron - There is nobody to negotiate your "Peace" with, there will always be some group that will target you, even more so if you do a deal at present - sort of like paying for protection - which by the way that is what Al-Qaeda and OBL wants you to do initially.

Part C: "What are you prepared to compromise on?"
OK "peace-monger" Ron, this is what your enemies have stated that they want you to do:

- Withdraw from all arab lands, in particular those in the middle-east.

- Convert to Islam, if you don't you have to pay them a sort of "Danegelt" each year so that they leave you alone (History shows that in the long run the Brits found that it didn't work, they ended up being invaded anyway)

- Adopt Sharia Law as the only law that governs your country
- Become part of a re-established world-wide Islamic Caliphate

Now then Ron in order to accommodate those demands in your pursuit of "peace-mongering" what would you be prepared to compromise on? I suppose the only place in the above where you have any room for manoeuvre is on the first point, but it wouldn't matter "Peace-monger" Ron - whatever you offered, it would never quite be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:02 AM

Well, I can reach the keyboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:44 AM

Dickey - The graph tells us nothing we do not already know.

The Shia prefer a democracy (of course, they are the majority) or an Islamic State.

The Sunni prefer a strong leader (aka Saddam).

How old are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:00 PM

It seems to me that the Majority if Iraqis want a Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:03 PM

Teribus--

Will you never learn to read anything but your own bons mots?

I've told you, more than once, "negotiation" will wait until after the "surge" is over--and most US troops are gone. Interesting that the UK is already winding down its involvement in Bush's tragic Iraq war. I'd be curious to know what you think of this development in UK foreign policy--since you seem to feel that we must stop the Islamic hordes in Iraq--lest we have to fight them in Indiana--or London.

And you can save your feeble excuse about "standing down as Iraqis stand up". The UK army is leaving Iraq--long before the US. What's your view of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 07:21 AM

Guest TIA,

Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that you can't even be bothered to get their name right?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 06:42 AM

So, let's see Mr. T. Do you know exactly why Al quaeda turned on the US? There is a very specific original reason -- professed by Al Quaeda at the very time.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 01:34 AM

Ron,

Al-Qaeda did not turn on America as a result of American actions and foreign policy initiated by the Bush Administration, America was targeted and attacked long before GWB became President of the United States of America.

Subsequent to actions taken against those who would attack America, there have been no attacks on American Embassies, no attacks on home soil, no attacks on US (or anybody else's) shipping. The organisation that claimed responsibility for all the previous attacks has been sucked into fighting battles in Iraq and in Afghanistan, where they are coming off decidedly second best. To function effectively as an insurgent force you have to have the unstinting support of the local population and you have to be able to dictate the course of events. In both Iraq and Afghanistan support of the population is waning fast. That has come about with the realisation that Al-Qaeda and the insurgency can offer nothing but violence. In both Iraq and in Afghanistan the insurgent forces have been sucked into fighting battles that the Government and Security Forces have picked.

Now then Ron, just in case you overlooked it, I'll ask you again:

How do you end the "War on Terror"? Who do you negotiate with? What are you prepared to compromise on?

If you haven't got a clue (Like most Democratic Party contenders for the Presidency) Ron - Just say so.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 12:32 AM

Napolitano warms to Iraq surge; Dems wary
        
PHOENIX Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano's support of military operations in Iraq is drawing criticism from members of her own party.
Napolitano spoke to state lawmakers about Iraq after visiting the country earlier this month.

Napolitano said she's optimistic about the country's security.

And she doesn't plan to call for a troop withdrawal.

Sherry Bohlen -- the co-chairwoman of the Arizona Progressive Democratic Caucus -- says Napolitano's words have been puzzling to Democrats.

Bohlen says the governor should realize that most Americans don't support a surge of troops in Iraq.

The Progressive Democratic Caucus generally represents the left wing of the party on issues ranging from the war to health care and economic justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 01:26 PM

Dickey--

As that well known foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain--surely you know of her work-- said: That don't impress me much.

You're falling right into line--just as I said in January--first comes the bragging about all the neighborhoods "cleared" and how the body count is down. Perhaps you don't recall how the rest of the story goes. It's not a pretty picture.

To simplify for your giant brain, I'll just say that --as General Petraeus recognizes, even if you don't---no progress can be claimed for quite a while yet.

And if my scenario holds--(not that I want it to--it's just that I recognize reality--perhaps you'd be advised to take off your rose-colored glasses)--there will never be lasting progress in "Iraq". This is particularly likely if, as the WSJ now says, al Sadr has decided his people should no longer co-operate with the Americans.   The Sadrists have the whip-hand----and Bush does not.

All they have to do is wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Mar 07 - 12:49 PM

The brightest image of the past two weeks was the scene of displaced families returning home; more than a thousand families are back to their homes under the protection of the Army and police. This figure invites hope that Baghdad will restore its social, ethnic and religious mosaic.

Marketplaces are seeing more activity and stores that were long shuttered are reopening--including even some liquor stores that came under vicious attacks in the past. This is a sign that extremists no longer can intimidate people and hold the city hostage. All of this gives the sense that law is being imposed.

Checkpoints are not seen as scary threats to the innocent. They look more professional and impartial as they include members of the police, army, multinational forces and even traffic cops with laptops verifying registration papers. We've lost the fear that checkpoints might be traps set by death squads; they search everyone, even official convoys and ambulances.

We feel safer about moving in the city now, and politicians who used to hide behind the walls of the Green Zone are venturing out. Watching Mr. Maliki walking on Palestine Street in central Baghdad gave a positive impression that the state, and not the gangs, owns the streets.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009754

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Mar 07 - 06:14 PM

Dickey--

Any student of history knows that FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, and that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. However it is clear that Lincoln only did it during a specific national emergency--not an amorphous--and by definition endless- "war on terror".

Bush thinks the "war on terror" gives him carte blanche to do anything. He needs to be disabused of this error. And anybody who still supports him needs to wake up.

As I've said before, it pays to dig beneath the surface. You may want to try it sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 11:04 PM

So, that means exactly what relative to Bush and Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 09:16 PM

Ron: I have shown examples of the things done by FDR and Lincoln that violated the Constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

That's what makes it so absurd that Teribus et al. look at Bush and see Churchill. Bush is the anti-Churchill. Instead of being painfully aware what war means, Bush, having absolutely no personal experience with war whatsoever, plunges heedlessly ahead into it--and anybody who opposes him is branded unpatriotic--read treasonous.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 04:13 PM

"It is unknowable how long the conflict [in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -February, 2003

That's how it was sold to us. Not as a nine (or more?) year affair. They knew damn well the public wouldn't go for that. Would you?

The neocons did not understand what Churchill did:

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

We tried to warn them, but.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 02:12 PM

Dickey--

You have yet to prove that you have any interest in history--or anything, it seems, than spouting simplistic slogans. Not a personal attack, just an observation. You're welcome to prove me wrong--but you've had many chances--and show no indication of even trying.

Oh, sorry, I was wrong--you are a bit trying.

But still amusing.




Teribus--

If you refuse to read, there's no point in even trying to discuss with you. Yet again, I never opposed the attack on Afghanistan--and, as president, have no plans to withdraw my troops from there soon--nor did I, as a humble citizen yesterday, indicate that I would.

Thanks for voting for me, by the way. Interesting that the vote of one British citizen was all it took to elect me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:03 PM

What was he referring to Tia?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:58 PM

So. Nine years. Hmm.

Can we all at now admit that at least Rumsfeld lied?

"Six days, six weeks...I don't think six months..."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 05:45 PM

Maybe if they go back in time and fix it so the Golden Mosque had not been blown up.

These people have grudges from over a thousand years ago that they are still killing over. Like the split between the Sunnis and Shia in 632.

Blowing up that Mosque just renewed the blood feud for another 1300+ years.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

I think the violence will end quickly if the U.S. withdraws. I don't think it will end in two weeks but it will only end when the U.S. withdraws.

I do believe this, "The real objective is to weaken the Jaish al-Mehdi [Mehdi Army] because this is - by far - the largest and most popular resistance movement in Iraq. The Americans are also hoping to weaken the Sadrist movement as a whole. For the Americans there is no difference between Shi'ites and Sunnis. The Americans fight anyone that resists them, but they talk about Shi'ites and Sunnis in order to pretend the problem is among the Iraqis themselves, not between the American occupation army and the Iraqi resistance."

and this:

MA: "What about the foreign component of the terrorist campaign? I am referring to the so-called jihadi Salafis and the takfiris; what are you going to do with them?"

MK: "These people took advantage of the American occupation of Iraq. Their propaganda rests on the claim that they are in Iraq to fight the Americans. Once the Americans leave, their support bases in Iraq will evaporate overnight. I don't think these people will give the Iraqis too much trouble. In any case, the Iraqis have the capability to deal with them in a quick and decisive manner."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:25 AM

I have heard that an insurgency usually lasts 9 years.

If we stay 9 years it should be sucessful. Hopefully our involvement will decrease during that period.

If we pull out, Iran may be able help the Shia to massacre the Sunnis in two weeks. That is probably what the guy meant when he said "all of this can be sorted out in a week, maximum two weeks"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:53 PM

I do not.
Do you believe it will stop in 5 years if we stay?
How 'bout 10 years?
When?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 09:34 PM

Dianavan: Do you believe all of the violence will end in a week or two if the US withdraws?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

Lets give others a chance to read the article and see what they think when statements are not taken out of context.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 03:02 PM

Dinavan: Are you saying that if America withdraws from Iraq, everything will be OK?

"MA: Given the intensity of the sectarian war in the past two years, will all the deaths, displacement, misery, resentment and thirst for revenge that go with it; you really think all this can be settled in a two-week war?

MK: Yes, all of this can be sorted out in a week, maximum two weeks.
"

Do you believe this Dianavan?

"Abedin: What they do essentially is work with militias and armed factions in Iraq, and they enable them to gain a critical advantage over their adversaries -- and their adversaries are, first and foremost, the Sunni factions."

http://www.payvand.com/news/07/feb/1208.html



"According to Mahan Abedin, research director at the London-based Center for the Study of Terrorism, the Quds Force operates as an elite special-operations unit for the Revolutionary Guard. Its core group of operatives numbers about 800, with a slightly larger support group.

Quds operatives have carried out intelligence and military missions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Bosnia and Sudan.

Iran has extensive political, cultural and religious links to major Iraqi Shiite leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and top figures in virtually every major Shiite political party.

Quds operatives are widely thought to have provided training and other support to militias tied to the Shiite factions in Iraq that have clashed with U.S. and allied forces."

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070218-103953-6843r.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM

Here is an excellent interview that explains the Sadrist movement in Iraq and why the U.S. should withdraw.

"Mr. Abedin is an expert on Iran, Iraq and Islamic movements and ideologies."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=AL-20070308&articleId=5004

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 01:51 AM

Dear "Peace-Monger" Ron, again you are deliberately missing the point to avoid answering the question. To aid your ailing skills at comprehension I will give you a clue. The question regarding who you negotiate with is not Iraq specific so your:

" the "negotiating" you are talking of will have to wait until the "surge" is over"

as an answer is way off the mark.

Hypothetical situation, "Peace-Monger" Ron, you have been elected President of the USA and are now correcting all the supposed ills of the previous regime, you have withdrawn your troops from Iraq and from Afghanistan and from anywhere else that you have a mind to. Now how do you end the "War on Terror"? Who do you negotiate with? What are you prepared to compromise on? Remembering of course that those terrorists put your nation in their cross-hairs almost twenty years ago, i.e. long before GWB was elected, and long before the US involvement in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

Ron: Now your responses are becoming 100% personal attacks. You didn't even give me a reading assignment.

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

Dickey--

So sorry to tell you that history is not a series of bumper-stickers--as you seem to think it is. And in fact it is often worthwhile to dig below the surface. If of course you want to learn something. But perhaps you don't.

They say that ignorance is bliss. I've never found that. Maybe you have.



Teribus--

I didn't think I'd have time to attend to you. But the internet classical station is playing the Mozart Clarinet Quintet--so of course I can't leave.

At any rate, your reading skills, I'm sorry to say, are deteriorating yet again. Must be a common Bushite failing. I was never against the attack on Afghanistan--and have said so several times--if you ever read anything but your own bons mots.

And, as I said, the "negotiating" you are talking of will have to wait until the "surge" is over. That's the only time we will know how things have changed--if they have. Added to which, some important figures--like al Sadr-- are not available at this point.

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

And the "big difference" is what?
What hairs are we splitting now?
Oh yes, let's please argue about tiny little details and semantics using voluminous posts with lots of acronyms.

I told you what factions are fighting. Now you want what exactly?

Naahhh. Nevermind. I keep getting sucked into this 4-year-old(both chronologically and mentally BTW) tail-chasing game.

I'm done.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 12:20 PM

Teribus - Yes, there is a civil war in Iraq and Maliki is doing all he can to keep his govt. in power. Who are the two sides? Sunni and Shia.

I did not say that Iran should occupy Iraq. I did say that Al-Sadr's army (with backing from Iran) could help keep Maliki in power. Of course thats not going to happen because Bush (the occupier) will put Allawi in power before he allows the present government to succeed - the democratic govt. he said he wanted. Now we know that all Bush really wanted was another puppet.

btw - Although I agree with much of what Ron has to say, we are not the same 'lot' as you put it. It is that kind of black and white thinking that creates conflict in our world.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

No Tia you answered the following questions in the post you refer to:

"In Iraq at present do you believe that MNF troops are still fighting the war that began in March 2003?"

"Who do you believe that the MNF troops are currently fighting?"

Now who are the "sides" that are fighting this "civil war"?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:22 AM

Teribus asks me "Perhaps you can tell us what factions are "fighting" this "civil war"?

If you've been reading, and not just posting, you would know that you already asked me this very question, and I immediately answered it -- in this very thread!

See:
Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA - PM
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:38 PM

Sheesh.

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

"Maliki didn't want U.S. troops"

I have seen no indications of this. I have seen that he was "uneasy" about it and that he "had not acquiesced" to it.

To say he didn't want them is rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:43 AM

Well then Tia:

"What's going on in Iraq meets every definition of civil war."

Perhaps you can tell us what factions are "fighting" this "civil war"? Perhaps you can outline their goals and aspirations for the country? Perhaps you can name the leaders of the sides fighting this "civil war", who no doubt wish to lead the country once their victory is assured?

What is going on in Iraq today is as much a "civil war" as there was a "civil war" in Northern ireland 1969 to 1998 - Clue for you TIA it wasn't, and no-one ever claimed that it was.

"Better for us to be there for 27 years, than for Iran to be there for 27 years."

Damn right as far as the people of Iraq and those in the rest of the region are concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:11 AM

What's going on in Iraq meets every definition of civil war. Well, okay, maybe not GWB's and his supporters, but everyone else. And our boys and girls are in the middle of it.

And, I sense mission creep (again). Now, the reason we are in Iraq (reason number 12 or 13 I think) is to keep Iran from getting involved in Iraq's internal affairs.

Better for us to be there for 27 years, than for Iran to be there for 27 years. At least that's what we told before the invasion...oh wait, wrong thread...this belongs in the Proof Bush Lied thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM

dianavan - 07 Mar 07 - 02:46 AM

"Maliki should tell the U.S. to go home and let al-Sadr's Mahdi Army deal with the Sunnis. It is, after all, an Iraqi problem. With the help of Iran, the insurgency wouldn't have a chance."

I take it that this gem hasn't been run past Ron Davies then Dianavan? It is also a recipe that guarantees the "Civil War", you lot are always harping on about, but which as yet has still to 2kick-off".

You do seem rather hell bent on getting Iran involved in Iraq's internal affairs in much the same way that Syria got involved in those of the Lebanon (i.e. an army of occupation for 27 years).

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

Actually Dickie, Al Quaeda doesn't seem to be the least bit intimidated by U.S. troops. The reason Maliki didn't want U.S. troops, originally, is because he would have to disband the Shiite Militia and let the U.S. deal with the Sunni insurgency and/or Al Quaeda. He accepted a billion dollars in reconstruction aid and gave the U.S. the go-ahead. Too bad. As usual, the U.S. is just prolonging the agony.

Maliki should tell the U.S. to go home and let al-Sadr's Mahdi Army deal with the Sunnis. It is, after all, an Iraqi problem. With the help of Iran, the insurgency wouldn't have a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 08:36 PM

I think it is those Sunni's who do not want more troops.

They just morphed all by themselves with no outside al-Qaeda influence.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 03:51 PM

For some reason, your link does not work, Dickey.

I did find another article on the same subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-iraq.html?ex=1309147200&en=ac256f3cd52fe9ed&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It says that the alleged perpetrator was Mr. Badri.

"Mr. Badri was born in Samarra and comes from a predominantly Sunni Arab tribe that is common in Salahuddin province, the home region of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Rubaie said. He said Mr. Badri had ties to Saddam Hussein's government and was a member of the Army of Ansar al-Sunna before joining Al Qaeda. Ansar al-Sunna is a particularly violent religious group that was founded in the far north after the American invasion, but has since recruited members from all across Iraq, including volatile Anbar province."

So you see, Dickie, since the U.S. invasion, most law-abiding Sunnis have fled Iraq; some of those loyal to Saddam, have morphed into Al Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

The text shows up for me.

If I cut and past you mean spiritedly threaten me about copyright infringement.

Amongst the text: "BAGHDAD The Samarra shrine bombing, which set off waves of sectarian killing that are still plaguing the country, was the brainchild of an Iraqi member of Al Qaeda, and not a foreign terrorist, a senior Iraqi official said today.

Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, the country's national security adviser, identified Haitham al-Badri as the planner of the February attack. He said that Badri, a member of a Sunni tribe from Salahadin province, which includes Samarra, was currently a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but earlier had belonged to a different Iraqi insurgent group, Ansar al-Sunna.

Rubaie said that the recent capture of a member of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Yousri Fakher Mohammed Ali, a Tunisian also known as Abu Qudama, had led to the identification of Badri.

Abu Qudama was wounded and captured several days ago after a group of 16 insurgents tried to storm a checkpoint in al-Dhuluiya, 25 miles north of Baghdad, Rubaie said. All the other attackers were killed, and afterwards, Abu Qudama confessed to killing many Iraqis, and provided details of the Samarra bombing...

...That confession yielded several new details about the shrine bombing, Rubaie. He said it was the work of a team of two Iraqis, four Saudis and Abu Qudama,under the direction of Badri."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:41 AM

Dickey, there is no text in the link, only the title, "Shrine blast suspect is held, Iraqi official says"

May I remind you that a suspect is only a suspect.

You'll have to do better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Dickey
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:47 AM

Dianavan: See

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/28/africa/web.0628iraq.php