NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems the US Embassy in Iraq (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002690071) has a slightly different view of things. In a cable published in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf) (warning--pdf file), the US Embassy in Iraq notes the following:
This cable outlines, the Post reported Sunday, "the daily-worsening conditions for those who live outside the heavily guarded international zone: harassment, threats and the employees' constant fears that their neighbors will discover they work for the U.S. government."

It's actually far worse than that, as the details published below indicate, which include references to abductions, threats to women's rights, and "ethnic cleansing."

A PDF copy of the cable shows that it was sent to the SecState in Washington, D.C. from "AMEmbassy Baghdad" on June 6. The typed name at the very bottom is Khalilzad -- the name of the U.S. Ambassador, though it is not known if this means he wrote the memo or merely approved it.

The subject of the memo is: "Snapshots from the Office -- Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord."

As a footnote in one of the 23 sections, the embassy relates, "An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militiast are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq."

Among the other troubling reports:

-- "Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."

-- One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.

-- Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamist and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."

-- Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May...."some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.

-- It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.

-- Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "is punishing populations as Saddam did."

-- Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials.

-- "For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff members for translation at on-camera press events....We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their 'cover.'"

-- "More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."

-- The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels 'defeated' by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.

-- "Another employee tell us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining.' He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral 'every evening.'"

-- Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without.....One staff member reported that a friend lives in a building that houses a new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day."

-- The cable concludes that employees' "personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials."Who are you going to believe--the courageous warbloggers of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders or that State Department full of Islamofascists and Commies?

State Dept.? They sound all official and everything.

State Dept.? They sound all official and everything.
Well, it's just another place to send junk mail.

commies? in the US?
I thought the commies in the US were shipped of to Cuba.

commies? in the US?
I thought the commies in the US were shipped of to Cuba.
Nah - they're in charge of the US while simultaneously demonizing everyone & anyone who dares to question what's going on. Flippity-floppity on the names and ranks, ya know ...
war is peace

Nah - they're in charge of the US while simultaneously demonizing everyone & anyone who dares to question what's going on. Flippity-floppity on the names and ranks, ya know ...
war is peace

War is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance is strength

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

*pops popcorn into mouth*

Anyway, about 1000 Jihadis seem to be getting killed for every 1 American.

While I'm very sorry for the family and friends of that American, I really can watch the Suicide Show of those 1000 Jihadis every day.

War is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance is strength

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

And may all your interventions be humanitarian.

*pops popcorn into mouth*

Anyway, about 1000 Jihadis seem to be getting killed for every 1 American.

While I'm very sorry for the family and friends of that American, I really can watch the Suicide Show of those 1000 Jihadis every day.

Considering the effect our presence has on their recruiting, they could lose 1000 people a week, and still hold out indefinatly.

.....and I notice you made no mention of the dead Iraqi civilians.

.....and I notice you made no mention of the dead Iraqi civilians.
Knowing BogMarsh, I think he did. You just don't like it. :)

Knowing BogMarsh, I think he did. You just don't like it. :)

Let's say that the only Iraqi civilians I care about are NOT Arab sunnis over 13...

Considering the effect our presence has on their recruiting, they could lose 1000 people a week, and still hold out indefinatly.

.....and I notice you made no mention of the dead Iraqi civilians.


I'm thinking their casualties are indeed in that order of magnitude. If not a bit higher.

Notice that the Americans can hold out indefinetely as well.

*eats more popcorn*

I'm thinking their casualties are indeed in that order of magnitude. If not a bit higher.

Notice that the Americans can hold out indefinetely as well.

*eats more popcorn*

Riiiiiiiiight. At the cost of bankrupting the US and almost inviting civil unrest.

Making war OUR way is a WHOLE lot more expensive than theirs.

I'm thinking their casualties are indeed in that order of magnitude. If not a bit higher.

Notice that the Americans can hold out indefinetely as well.

*eats more popcorn*
Not really. The Iraqis can hold out indefinitely because they have nowhere else to go--it's either that or extinction. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the Americans could hold out indefinitely, but that assumes the necessary political willingness to exterminate the populace, and currently, that doesn't exist, and I hope it never will.

Riiiiiiiiight. At the cost of bankrupting the US and almost inviting civil unrest.

*prints out more banknotes*

Civil unrests can be repressed.

*eats more popcorn*

Let's say that the only Iraqi civilians I care about are NOT Arab sunnis over 13...

What about those abused, threatened women?

I'm thinking their casualties are indeed in that order of magnitude. If not a bit higher.

Notice that the Americans can hold out indefinetely as well.

*eats more popcorn*Well.. According to a UNICEF report, the sanctions killed some 2700-3400 civilians a month. If you want dead Iraqi citizens, I'm not sure the war is a very effective way of getting it.

Not really. The Iraqis can hold out indefinitely because they have nowhere else to go--it's either that or extinction. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the Americans could hold out indefinitely, but that assumes the necessary political willingness to exterminate the populace, and currently, that doesn't exist, and I hope it never will.


You have my sympathy on that.

However, I don't have that much faith in Bush and Cie's humanitarian motives.

What about those abused, threatened women?

Whose?

*prints out more banknotes*

That "creates" more money does it? Bwahahahahahaha! No, what "printing more banknotes" does is devalue the currency. Runaway inflation, in other words.

Civil unrests can be repressed.

*eats more popcorn*

Tell that to the British, circa 1776, or the French just a little while later. Or perhaps the Russians at the start of the 20th century.

[QUOTE=BogMarsh]*prints out more banknotes*[/quotes]

That "creates" more money does it? Bwahahahahahaha! No, what "printing more banknotes" does is devalue the currency. Runaway inflation, in other words.



Tell that to the British, circa 1776, or the French just a little while later. Or perhaps the Russians at the start of the 20th century.


The Brits didn't have Haliburton, did they?

And inflation of the USD is not my problem.
We use Pounds Sterling in the North Riding.

*eats more popcorn*

The Brits didn't have Haliburton, did they?

And inflation of the USD is not my problem.
We use Pounds Sterling in the North Riding.

*eats more popcorn*

So, the British aren't spending any money in Iraq?

I'm glad people dying gives you the munchies. I suggest you get a front row seat to the War. The special effects are better that way.

So, the British aren't spending any money in Iraq?

I'm glad people dying gives you the munchies. I suggest you get a front row seat to the War. The special effects are better that way.

Our budget isn't looking too badly, considering who drew it.

Should I care about your recommendations?

We didn't get much islamic commiserations over 7/7 - and I sure as hell don't waste tears over dead islamic troublemakers.

*turns to watching Trooping the Colours*

Seems the US Embassy in Iraq (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002690071) has a slightly different view of things. In a cable published in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf) (warning--pdf file), the US Embassy in Iraq notes the following:
Who are you going to believe--the courageous warbloggers of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders or that State Department full of Islamofascists and Commies?
Here's the one I love.

-- It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.

I don't think it has to do with increased terrorism, either. I was personally attacked by the offical Saudi religious police (four guys in a jeep, with sticks) when I was running for exercise on the Dharan air base during Desert Storm. Actually, I evaded them and found an armed MP to cower behind.

Who are you going to believe--the courageous warbloggers of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders or that State Department full of Islamofascists and Commies?

This was written before Zarqawi was killed and the 400 something raids on the insurgency were performed.

War is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance is strength

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!
Im so ignoranr-what the hell is soylent green?

on a more serious note, it doesnt seem that the insurgency is dying.
America have no options-either they pull out of Iraq and the situation turns into a civil war and even more chaos than it is
Or they stay and the situation turns into civil war and everyone gets blown up.
Im not sure which is worse.

More bad news out of Iraq - what is the liberal left's first response?

A) To bemoan the loss of life and condemn the Islamofascist insurgency and perpetrators of sectarian violence whose depravity seems only surpassed by their motives.

B) To offer constructive criticisms of the way the US is currently handling the situation, to stress areas where more needs to be done or where a different approach to the situation needs to be made.

C) To show their solidarity with the Iraqi secular left and all those intent on establishing a decent, modern democratic state that respects human rights, promotes universal values like liberty and tolerance and who seek to put an end to more than 30 years of bloodshed.

Or is it:

D) Engage in pointless acts of smug verbal masturbation, use the event as a political tool to beat the Bush administration to death with and spit on the efforts of those Iraqis and Westerners alike who seek to make Iraq a better place and are dying for it. Because even if it comes at the expense of people are being butchered, it's always nice to feel right.

The answer of course, if option D.

Our budget isn't looking too badly, considering who drew it.

Should I care about your recommendations?

We didn't get much islamic commiserations over 7/7 - and I sure as hell don't waste tears over dead islamic troublemakers.

*turns to watching Trooping the Colours*

Since you have a 5 year old's understanding of economics (Out of money? Print more!) how the F do you know how much Islamic commiserations there were? Did you talk to any followers of Islam? Watch Islamic television? Read an Islamic newspaper? Anything?

Since you have a 5 year old's understanding of economics (Out of money? Print more!) how the F do you know how much Islamic commiserations there were? Did you talk to any followers of Islam? Watch Islamic television? Read an Islamic newspaper? Anything?

Do you habitually read islamic magazines or summat?
Are you, in fact, a muslim?

*starts writing your ticket for Gitmo*

Our budget isn't looking too badly, considering who drew it.

Should I care about your recommendations?

We didn't get much islamic commiserations over 7/7 - and I sure as hell don't waste tears over dead islamic troublemakers.

*turns to watching Trooping the Colours*
we got plenty,I was in germany when it happened and I went to the embassy to see if I knew anyone.There were german muslims outside the embassy laying flowers and offering comiserations,as well as other germans.I was moved I must say and there ar the equivalent of 7/7 happeniong every day in iraqw with hundreds more lives lost.I dont care if they are muslim or not ,dead women and children are dead women and children and I hate it happening.

This was written before Zarqawi was killed and the 400 something raids on the insurgency were performed.

Al Qaeda weren't fond of Zarqawi and he's been replaced. What specific goals were achieved by the 400 raids? Are the attacks slowing down? Is violence outside the international zone subsiding?

More bad news out of Iraq - what is the liberal left's first response?

A) To bemoan the loss of life and condemn the Islamofascist insurgency and perpetrators of sectarian violence whose depravity seems only surpassed by their motives.

B) To offer constructive criticisms of the way the US is currently handling the situation, to stress areas where more needs to be done or where a different approach to the situation needs to be made.

C) To show their solidarity with the Iraqi secular left and all those intent on establishing a decent, modern democratic state that respects human rights, promotes universal values like liberty and tolerance and who seek to put an end to more than 30 years of bloodshed.

Or is it:

D) Engage in pointless acts of smug verbal masturbation, use the event as a political tool to beat the Bush administration to death with and spit on the efforts of those Iraqis and Westerners alike who seek to make Iraq a better place and are dying for it. Because even if it comes at the expense of people are being butchered, it's always nice to feel right.

The answer of course, if option D.

maybe you think so but that kind of generalisation adds nothing to the debate.I would consider myself left wing,I dont agree with american foreign policy and I think bush is an arse, but I dont agree with suicide bombings and dont sympathise with those who commit thuis kind of atrocity.
I could say the same about the right and their obsession with badmouthing islam-but then I realise that not all right wingers are islamaphobes.

More bad news out of Iraq - what is the liberal left's first response?

A) To bemoan the loss of life and condemn the Islamofascist insurgency and perpetrators of sectarian violence whose depravity seems only surpassed by their motives.

B) To offer constructive criticisms of the way the US is currently handling the situation, to stress areas where more needs to be done or where a different approach to the situation needs to be made.

C) To show their solidarity with the Iraqi secular left and all those intent on establishing a decent, modern democratic state that respects human rights, promotes universal values like liberty and tolerance and who seek to put an end to more than 30 years of bloodshed.

Or is it:

D) Engage in pointless acts of smug verbal masturbation, use the event as a political tool to beat the Bush administration to death with and spit on the efforts of those Iraqis and Westerners alike who seek to make Iraq a better place and are dying for it. Because even if it comes at the expense of people are being butchered, it's always nice to feel right.

The answer of course, if option D.
:rolleyes: If by options A, B, and C, you mean vigorously applauding Dear Leader Dubya and saying repeatedly "All is Well!" like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House, then you've got the standard internet warblogger response.

As for D, since the Bush administration used Iraq as a political tool from the beginning, and continues to use it at every possible opportunity, I feel no compunction about using it as well, especially since it was their disastrous policies that have created the fucked up situation that currently exists there.

maybe you think so but that kind of generalisation adds nothing to the debate.I would consider myself left wing,I dont agree with american foreign policy and I think bush is an arse, but I dont agree with suicide bombings and dont sympathise with those who commit thuis kind of atrocity.
I could say the same about the right and their obsession with badmouthing islam-but then I realise that not all right wingers are islamaphobes.

It does seem a general trend however, and it's impossible to discuss general trends without to some degree generalising.

Do you habitually read islamic magazines or summat?
Are you, in fact, a muslim?

No, but then again, I wasn't making any assertions as to the content of Islamic People's hearts worldwide.

It does seem a general trend however, and it's impossible to discuss general trends without to some degree generalising.

We're humans. It is very hard indeed to say "we told you so" when in fact, "we" vociferously told you so.

The insurgency is slowly being rolled up and dismantled as more police and Iraqi army forces come available to take controll. Thats a fact. Its doomed because the PEOPLE of Iraq NO LONGER SUPPORT IT . They will find fewer places to hide to plan and find funds. The sunni's have compromised and joined the government . Whats left have a choice ..fight and die in a futile effort ..or join the govenment..or for some of the hardline Bath party ..RUN .
The foriegn terrorist will be hunted like animals and disposed of because they are HATED by the general population and lack after the death of their leader and the round up of whatever infastructure they had the ability to function except at a low leveel until they are captured or killed .

So the happy news is Iraqs Democracy looks like it will take root and hold and shows every sign of working . The Iraqis will soon be able to protect themselves and provide their own security . US troops get to come home .

The sad news ...there are still those it seem who find NO joy at all at the prospect of a free Iraq . They would rather see it stay chaotic and count the bomb blast instead of showing support for a democratic Iraq.

Because if they dont .

Bush was right .


Thats sick but sooooooo true. 12 million Iraqis voted ...they have a constitution they voted on ..they formed a representative government..they did all this while fighting a three way insurgency ..they are committed.

But where is the LIBERAL or Leftwing support for them ?

I hate Bush so screw the iraqi's .

No, but then again, I wasn't making any assertions as to the content of Islamic People's hearts worldwide.

Better be darned sure whose side you're on.
Choose wisely. Your life depends on it - always.
And there ain't no sich thing as freedom of choice when others have it too.

*resumes watching the Coldstreamers*

The insurgency is slowly being rolled up and dismantled as more police and Iraqi army forces come available to take controll. Thats a fact.
It's not a fact, which is precisely the point of the original post. People on the ground--Iraqis who work with the coalition especially--are saying that the elected government of Iraq has no real power outside their meeting rooms. But I guess you didn't read that part of it. A little inconvenient, perhaps? Didn't mesh with your worldview so you simply ignored it? Yeah, that's the way to get results.

It's not a fact, which is precisely the point of the original post. People on the ground--Iraqis who work with the coalition especially--are saying that the elected government of Iraq has no real power outside their meeting rooms. But I guess you didn't read that part of it. A little inconvenient, perhaps? Didn't mesh with your worldview so you simply ignored it? Yeah, that's the way to get results.

I don't expect the elected government of iraq to do diddley-squat.

The only natural outcome of the Iraq War is an ayatollah-state.
( And I don't necessarily think that that is bad for us. )

We're humans. It is very hard indeed to say "we told you so" when in fact, "we" vociferously told you so.

Firstly of all the arguments made against the Iraq invasion, those related to potential post-war difficulties were far from the most prominent.

Secondly I would have hoped that your very humanity would prevent people like yourself from taking an all too prevalent satisfaction out of the sufferings of others just because you feel it makes you right.

I don't expect the elected government of iraq to do diddley-squat.

The only natural outcome of the Iraq War is an ayatollah-state.
( And I don't necessarily think that that is bad for us. )

I think that would be a horrendous outcome for us.

I also think that you underestimate the determination of the Iraqi left.

Firstly of all the arguments made against the Iraq invasion, those related to potential post-war difficulties were far from the most prominent.

Secondly I would have hoped that your very humanity would prevent people like yourself from taking an all too prevalent satisfaction out of the sufferings of others just because you feel it makes you right.
You're about the only person around here who seems to think that anti-war people are taking some satisfaction in that fucked up situation. I take none. I mourn for those people who have died already and for those who will die in the future, and I'm pissed at the people--like you--who continue to put your faith and trust in Dear Leader as though he's going to magically do something right even though he's fucked up everything he's ever touched in his life. And you have the balls to say that I'm getting smug satisfaction out of this? Do you have no shame?

It's not a fact, which is precisely the point of the original post.
Sorry, but it is a fact.
It's been a fact for the last year and bit, ever since Cheney told us they (the insurgents) were in their last throes in April, 2005.
Never mind that around 20000 Iraqis and >1000 US troops have been killed since then.
The point is, they ARE failing.

Get with the program Nazz. Jeez. :rolleyes:

I think that would be a horrendous outcome for us.

I also think that you underestimate the determination of the Iraqi left.

Why is that so?
An ayatollah-state will be a thorn in the feet of those Sunnis.
And this time in the Arab heartland itself.

Every Saudi that goes off to fight the heretic won't show up on our doorstep.
And history has affirmed that killing heretics in your own religion trumps killing infidels.

Thats sick but sooooooo true. 12 million Iraqis voted ...they have a constitution they voted on ..they formed a representative government..they did all this while fighting a three way insurgency ..they are committed.

But where is the LIBERAL or Leftwing support for them ?

I hate Bush so screw the iraqi's .

So, this is a clearcut example of a double standard in play. When anyone asks about the run-up and justifications for the war, the Bush administration always trots out "but the Libby/Dems supported the War!"

Then, when it comes to the question of who really cares for the Iraqis, it's always "you Libby/Dems don't support the War!"

Get it into you think heads that when rational adults discuss the war, both sides are really trying to figure out what the best method to help Americans and Iraqis both is. The disagreement is about methods and implications, NOT who we do or don't care about.

I have NEVER heard a non-troll hope for a negative outcome for the health and safety of our country or our troops. I've rarely even heard raving assholes hope for trouble for our troops.

I HAVE heard, on the other hand, a lot of conservative types (you make the call as to whether they are just trolls or not,) talk about "bombing them all" "glass parking lot" and the like.

But hey, you keep imagining that critics of the war hate America and the troops. Maybe the Easter Bunny will bring you some candy, too.

:rolleyes: If by options A, B, and C, you mean vigorously applauding Dear Leader Dubya and saying repeatedly "All is Well!" like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House, then you've got the standard internet warblogger response.

As for D, since the Bush administration used Iraq as a political tool from the beginning, and continues to use it at every possible opportunity, I feel no compunction about using it as well, especially since it was their disastrous policies that have created the fucked up situation that currently exists there.

It is possible to support the struggle for stability, peace and democracy in Iraq without necessary being a tool of the Bush administration. The fact that for you, your loathing of GWB seems to triumph all else, including the hopes of the majority of Iraqi people who have suffered enormously over the last 30 years is partisanship to the point of insanity and smacks of moral fecklessness of the highest order.

The fact that Bush wants see improvements in Iraq in part because it will boost his ratings does not justify your apparent urge to see more innocent people murdered because it will look badly on him.

Furthermore you've got to see a certain inconsistency in your argument, you condemn GWB (rightly) for politicising Iraq (although in his defence it would be hard not to) but then go on to do exactly the same thing yourself.

Putting the rights and wrongs of the war aside, who would have thought that wishing to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq would be such a divisive issue.

It is possible to support the struggle for stability, peace and democracy in Iraq without necessary being a tool of the Bush administration. The fact that for you, your loathing of GWB seems to triumph all else, including the hopes of the majority of Iraqi people who have suffered enormously over the last 30 years is partisanship to the point of insanity and smacks of moral fecklessness of the highest order.

What has Nazz ever said to give you that idea.

The fact that Bush wants see improvements in Iraq in part because it will boost his ratings does not justify your apparent urge to see more innocent people murdered because it will look badly on him.

We ALL want to see improvements in Iraq (except for the "glass parkinglot" people.) Do you REALLY think Nazz or me or any other, NON PSYCHOPATHIC person, wants to see innocent people murdered? Cut that right out. That is pure hyperbole wrapped in a shit sandwich.

Furthermore you've got to see a certain inconsistency in your argument, you condemn GWB (rightly) for politicising Iraq (although in his defence it would be hard not to) but then go on to do exactly the same thing yourself.

You can't politicize something that's already politicized.

Putting the rights and wrongs of the war aside, who would have thought that wishing to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq would be such a divisive issue.

It's not. Everyone wants to see a peaceful and Democratic Iraq (and the rest of the world, for that matter.) Those of us who criticize the war think that the current method IS NOT ACHIEVING a peaceful and Democratic Iraq. In fact, we think the current War is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE toward that end, in addition to being costly in both lives and money.

You're about the only person around here who seems to think that anti-war people are taking some satisfaction in that fucked up situation. I take none. I mourn for those people who have died already and for those who will die in the future, and I'm pissed at the people--like you--who continue to put your faith and trust in Dear Leader as though he's going to magically do something right even though he's fucked up everything he's ever touched in his life. And you have the balls to say that I'm getting smug satisfaction out of this? Do you have no shame?

Actually I have no faith whatsoever in George Bush and think he is an atrocious and incompetent president. The fact that you believe I am a supporter of his merely because I think the manner in which the liberal left is revelling in the tragedies in Iraq reveals how blinded by partisanship you are.

My support goes to the soldiers who are serving there and to the Iraqi secular left so yes, I have no shame since it would be without basis or cause.

It is possible to support the struggle for stability, peace and democracy in Iraq without necessary being a tool of the Bush administration. The fact that for you, your loathing of GWB seems to triumph all else, including the hopes of the majority of Iraqi people who have suffered enormously over the last 30 years is partisanship to the point of insanity and smacks of moral fecklessness of the highest order.

The fact that Bush wants see improvements in Iraq in part because it will boost his ratings does not justify your apparent urge to see more innocent people murdered because it will look badly on him.

Furthermore you've got to see a certain inconsistency in your argument, you condemn GWB (rightly) for politicising Iraq (although in his defence it would be hard not to) but then go on to do exactly the same thing yourself.

Putting the rights and wrongs of the war aside, who would have thought that wishing to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq would be such a divisive issue.
I'd love to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq, but that's not what this war was about, not from the start, and not at the moment. This war is about resource control, just like pretty much every other war ever fought. That's been clear from the beginning of the invasion, from even before the invasion when the Bush administration was so chummy with Ahmed Chalabi and hoped to install him as the new ruler of Iraq. So spare me the noble platitudes about democracy in Iraq, as though that were ever a consideration in the planning of this war and the aftermath. One thing is for certain--whatever comes out in the short term in Iraq, if it remotely resembles a democracy, it'll be in spite of rather than because of US interference.

What has Nazz ever said to give you that idea.



We ALL want to see improvements in Iraq (except for the "glass parkinglot" people.) Do you REALLY think Nazz or me or any other, NON PSYCHOPATHIC person, wants to see innocent people murdered? Cut that right out. That is pure hyperbole wrapped in a shit sandwich.



You can't politicize something that's already politicized.



It's not. Everyone wants to see a peaceful and Democratic Iraq (and the rest of the world, for that matter.) Those of us who criticize the war think that the current method IS NOT ACHIEVING a peaceful and Democratic Iraq. In fact, we think the current War is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE toward that end, in addition to being costly in both lives and money.

Well it's interesting how so many people seem unable to make a post about Iraq without using the suffix - "Bush suckz" or who can't commentate on a bombing without saying "Geez, this is going to be bad for the boys in the White House".

I can get on board with your final sentiment, but the manner in which the war in Iraq is commentated on by so many people on these forums leaves one with the sickly impression that some gain some degree of perverse pleasure out of getting bad news from Iraq, simply because their hatred of GWB trumps all else.

Actually I have no faith whatsoever in George Bush and think he is an atrocious and incompetent president. The fact that you believe I am a supporter of his merely because I think the manner in which the liberal left is revelling in the tragedies in Iraq reveals how blinded by partisanship you are.

The fact that you think people who disagree with you are monsters who glory in death makes YOU the blind partisan.

My support goes to the soldiers who are serving there and to the Iraqi secular left so yes, I have no shame because I feel no reason to be ashamed.

Good. Support the soldiers. NO ONE says you shouldn't.

Do me a favor, okay? Listen to what we who criticize the war say, not to what others say we say. Okay? Because NONE OF US say the shit you are saying we are. NONE.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever we should still be in Iraq. Can anyone honestly give me one good reason for why we shouldn't completely pull out without delay?

Seems the US Embassy in Iraq (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002690071) has a slightly different view of things. In a cable published in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf) (warning--pdf file), the US Embassy in Iraq notes the following:
Who are you going to believe--the courageous warbloggers of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders or that State Department full of Islamofascists and Commies?

You seem to think that it was implied that the insurgency would just up and disappear overnight.

If you recall, one of the major turning points of the US Civil War was the discovery of Confederate plans wrapped around a bundle of cigars which led to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. Still, the war did not end for some time after that battle, and thousands more died before it was over. But that was the turning point.

IMHO, the turning point here was the discovery of a large list of contacts on Zarqawi's data drive. Sure, there was a windfall of arrests and killings of insurgents after that - but the effects are something we'll see over time, not overnight.

The attacks themselves may continue for a while, but it remains to be seen how badly their infrastructure was damaged. Insurgents need to get money (which they mostly got from overseas), obtain arms (more and more of which must come from Syria), and recruit more followers. While the martyrdom of Zarqawi may incite people to want to become followers, they still require a safe place to train, secure communications, and leaders.

Decapitating a network of insurgents (not just Zarqawi, but most of his mid-level leadership) hurts the insurgency.

Well it's interesting how so many people seem unable to make a post about Iraq without using the suffix - "Bush suckz" or who can't commentate on a bombing without saying "Geez, this is going to be bad for the boys in the White House".

First of all, we do say that. This is Bush's war. But that's not all we say. Mostly, especially with Nazz, we have very specific reasons why we think Bush sucks. And nowhere will you find people being satified about death and carnage...t least no one able to make complete sentences (or a reasonable approximation, lol.)

I can get on board with your final sentiment, but the manner in which the war in Iraq is commentated on by so many people on these forums leaves one with the sickly impression that some gain some degree of perverse pleasure out of getting bad news from Iraq, simply because their hatred of GWB trumps all else.

How much of that is ACTUALLY what is being said, and how much is it YOU imagining to yourself that the person writing what is said has a self-satisfied smirk on their face? See, since you already disagree with someone, your mind tends to imagine the worst when you read what someone has written. That's why sarcasm and satire are so often not "gotten" online. The visual and verbal clues are absent, and people tend to write informally.

Do me a favor. Try not to demonize your political opponents. Try to read WHAT IS ACTUALLY SAID without thinking to yourself that the person writing it is eating babies.

I'd love to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq, but that's not what this war was about, not from the start, and not at the moment. This war is about resource control, just like pretty much every other war ever fought. That's been clear from the beginning of the invasion, from even before the invasion when the Bush administration was so chummy with Ahmed Chalabi and hoped to install him as the new ruler of Iraq. So spare me the noble platitudes about democracy in Iraq, as though that were ever a consideration in the planning of this war and the aftermath. One thing is for certain--whatever comes out in the short term in Iraq, if it remotely resembles a democracy, it'll be in spite of rather than because of US interference.

The motives for the invasion have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we are now there and that we are fighting for democracy. Whether or not that was why we went in is a mute point in the context of non-partisan discussion.

I don't entirely agree with some of your other points but since there have been 1001 threads about whether or not the war was justified I won't comment on them. I will say however that I believe the war was largely about democracy but that the Bush administration believed it would not have been able to get the public on board with that and so it went with the WMD line instead. If you read the writings of some of the neocon architects of foreign policy for the administration (most notably Paul Wolfowitz) you can see that he's been talking about the need to bring democracy to the Middle East (through self-interested as well as altruistic motives) for a long time before 9/11 never mind the 2nd Iraq war.

Let's say that the only Iraqi civilians I care about are NOT Arab sunnis over 13...

I'd heard that rumour.

isn't stalingrad over,
"Hmmm… let’s see if we can find a lesson from history that may have prevented this: Funding and arming an oppressive, militaristic regime against what we consider to be the greater of 2 evils. This support of murderers and tyrants then leads in turn to well entrenched anti-American sentiment in the country/region, and turns the country into a haven for terrorism fueled by unresolved economic and social desperation. Sound familiar anyone? Bueller?"

funny:p isn't it?

The fact that you think people who disagree with you are monsters who glory in death makes YOU the blind partisan.



Good. Support the soldiers. NO ONE says you shouldn't.

Do me a favor, okay? Listen to what we who criticize the war say, not to what others say we say. Okay? Because NONE OF US say the shit you are saying we are. NONE.

It remains unsaid, there is an all too evident "we told you so" smugness that's all too visible whenever something goes wrong in Iraq.

I'd love to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq, but that's not what this war was about, not from the start, and not at the moment. This war is about resource control, just like pretty much every other war ever fought. That's been clear from the beginning of the invasion, from even before the invasion when the Bush administration was so chummy with Ahmed Chalabi and hoped to install him as the new ruler of Iraq. So spare me the noble platitudes about democracy in Iraq, as though that were ever a consideration in the planning of this war and the aftermath. One thing is for certain--whatever comes out in the short term in Iraq, if it remotely resembles a democracy, it'll be in spite of rather than because of US interference.

You'll note that I am not full of noble platitudes. Most of WW II was about resources - spare me the ideologies and cultures of the time which were used to organize and motivate people.

Most war is about control and resources. Are you saying that we should be surprised?

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever we should still be in Iraq. Can anyone honestly give me one good reason for why we shouldn't completely pull out without delay?

Because the sectarian violence would escalate into a civil war.

There, you want another?

These topics always invite the American Baghdad Bobs. If you don't know who he is/was, he was the Iraqi Minister of Disinformation and Bad English. Look him up.

Because the sectarian violence would escalate into a civil war.

There, you want another?
It's already a civil war. It's largely the US's fault that it has descended into that position, but there's little denying that that's where we are as of now.

These topics always invite the American Baghdad Bobs. If you don't know who he is/was, he was the Iraqi Minister of Disinformation and Bad English. Look him up.
These topics always invite the people who have no argument except ad hominems.

You'll note that I am not full of noble platitudes. Most of WW II was about resources - spare me the ideologies and cultures of the time which were used to organize and motivate people.

Most war is about control and resources. Are you saying that we should be surprised?
Not at all. I just wish others would be as blunt about it. Anti-war protestors are still roundly mocked when they suggest that this war is about control of Iraqi oil, but the fact remains that Iraq sits on perhaps the largest remaining unexplored or sparsely explored oil deposits in the world, and there's an increasing demand for it. US oil companies have lost global reserves due to nationalization over the last 40 years and have had problems replacing them--Hussein wasn't going to give them a shot at it because he hated the US, so the US decided to relieve him of his burden. This war was always about control of those resources, and anyone looking at the subject honestly knew it from the start. Everything else was window-dressing.

It remains unsaid, there is an all too evident "we told you so" smugness that's all too visible whenever something goes wrong in Iraq.

"We told you so" is a far cry from "yay, death and destruction!" And again, YOU are reading things into what is being said.

Here's an excercise. Imagine you have two friends. One is totally tight with you. He's always got your back. He's the kind of guy you can call for a ride home after a fucked up night. Now the other friend is kinda a jerk. Always borrows money. He loves to pull pranks. Dated a girlfriend of yours right after you broke up with her. Stuff like that

Now imagine both friends warned you that a girl you're dating is a cheater and is totally untrustworthy. Now imagine that this imaginary girlfriend starts blowing you off to hang out with someone else. She lies to you. Starts to act like a total bitch.

Finally, imagine that both your friends say "I told you so," except one says it with an arm around you as he buys you a beer and listens as you pour your heart out. The other one says the same exact words, but while rolling on his back, laughing up a storm. Then he ditches you to hook up with your girlfriend.

Same words.

Not at all. I just wish others would be as blunt about it. Anti-war protestors are still roundly mocked when they suggest that this war is about control of Iraqi oil, but the fact remains that Iraq sits on perhaps the largest remaining unexplored or sparsely explored oil deposits in the world, and there's an increasing demand for it. US oil companies have lost global reserves due to nationalization over the last 40 years and have had problems replacing them--Hussein wasn't going to give them a shot at it because he hated the US, so the US decided to relieve him of his burden. This war was always about control of those resources, and anyone looking at the subject honestly knew it from the start. Everything else was window-dressing.


It's easy to be blunt if you view the world through the lens of Realpolitik and naked, raw, survival ethics.

Iran may get relieved, but not until the US gets time to catch its breath.

If North Korea was sitting on oil, it would be worth taking. But it's sitting on one of the world's largest supplies of uranium on earth - almost all of the ex-USSRs nuclear weapons were made from North Korean uranium. We'll be around to collect that soon enough.

Because the sectarian violence would escalate into a civil war.

There, you want another?
Ho! and it justifies everything,even if both were fucking nuts..
And Sadaam is no angel but Democracy should go back to school,,,,
Before you know it ,that will be the only place to read about it(if able to).

Not at all. I just wish others would be as blunt about it. Anti-war protestors are still roundly mocked when they suggest that this war is about control of Iraqi oil,
that and the threats Saddam was making about going over to the Euro for preferred payment which, if adopted by the other ME oil producing countries, would have screwed the US economy.

These topics always invite the people who have no argument except ad hominems.
Like that.

Like that.
You went first, unless you went back and edited your post as you usually do.

You went first, unless you went back and edited your post as you usually do.
Yeah, about those ad hominems? The majority of that sentence was solely an attack on my character, which is the one made up in your head.

These topics always invite the American Baghdad Bobs. If you don't know who he is/was, he was the Iraqi Minister of Disinformation and Bad English. Look him up.
Oooh! There's the ad hominem. And that's all it is. And look who posted before Deep Kimchi!

Al Qaeda weren't fond of Zarqawi and he's been replaced. What specific goals were achieved by the 400 raids? Are the attacks slowing down? Is violence outside the international zone subsiding?

And the documentation found at the site of Zarqawi's bunker, and subsiquent locations produced from the raids...? Those documents which outline great concern for the future progress of the insurgency outlining an inability to maintain recruitment, the continued effectiveness of american strikes, and restrictions on cash flow ?

Progress against the insurgency is not nessesarly only gagued by decreases in attacks short term

And the documentation found at the site of Zarqawi's bunker, and subsiquent locations produced from the raids...? Those documents which outline great concern for the future progress of the insurgency outlining an inability to maintain recruitment, the continued effectiveness of american strikes, and restrictions on cash flow ?

Progress against the insurgency is not nessesarly only gagued by decreases in attacks short term

Gymoor wants immediate results. As in 24 hours, just like Jack Bauer!

Gymoor wants immediate results. As in 24 hours, just like Jack Bauer!
Oh bullshit. I started this thread in response to Designated Marksman's idiotic thread titled "The insurgency is failing." If anything, it's DM and his buddies who are acting as though the insurgency is about to fall apart any moment. Gymoor and I (among many others) are arguing the exact opposite--that the insurgency is getting stronger and is far from failing. You really ought to read this stuff first before you say stupid shit like that.

Oh bullshit. I started this thread in response to Designated Marksman's idiotic thread titled "The insurgency is failing." If anything, it's DM and his buddies who are acting as though the insurgency is about to fall apart any moment. Gymoor and I (among many others) are arguing the exact opposite--that the insurgency is getting stronger and is far from failing. You really ought to read this stuff first before you say stupid shit like that.

Yet Im saying, and what I belive Deep is suggesting is that the criteria by which your measuring the strength of the insurgency is not nessearly telling of a short term weakness... in the long run of course, continuance of consitent attacks, and seemingly endless recruits would indicate a vibrant possibly strengthening insurgency. However, new information gathered from Zarqawri's bunker, and information from other raids as a result of that attack have brought us new information indicating great concern for the insurgency's strength. The things that where outlined in this information, such as success of coalition attacks, lack of new recuits, tighening of funds and arms are all signs of short term weakness which would mark the beginning of the end.. you wont see things like decreases in attacks for some time, when these weaknesses really take hold.

Yet Im saying, and what I belive Deep is suggesting is that the criteria by which your measuring the strength of the insurgency is not nessearly telling of a short term weakness... in the long run of course, continuance of consitent attacks, and seemingly endless recruits would indicate a vibrant possibly strengthening insurgency. However, new information gathered from Zarqawri's bunker, and information from other raids as a result of that attack have brought us new information indicating great concern for the insurgency's strength. The things that where outlined in this information, such as success of coalition attacks, lack of new recuits, tighening of funds and arms are all signs of short term weakness which would mark the beginning of the end.. you wont see things like decreases in attacks for some time, when these weaknesses really take hold.

These er notes you're on about. They were recovered by the Americans. They weren't just made up on the spot for propaganda purposes. Of course there wouldn't be any precedent for that.

Oh bullshit. I started this thread in response to Designated Marksman's idiotic thread titled "The insurgency is failing." If anything, it's DM and his buddies who are acting as though the insurgency is about to fall apart any moment. Gymoor and I (among many others) are arguing the exact opposite--that the insurgency is getting stronger and is far from failing. You really ought to read this stuff first before you say stupid shit like that.
Apparently, Zarqawi saw long term problems with the insurgency - and that was before he got killed and we got all that information out of his data drive.

No, it's not going to fall apart at any moment, but it's got only one thing going for it - the fact that Americans don't have any stomach for anything that involves long term fighting. So all they have to do is be assholes forever, and they win.

Yet Im saying, and what I belive Deep is suggesting is that the criteria by which your measuring the strength of the insurgency is not nessearly telling of a short term weakness... in the long run of course, continuance of consitent attacks, and seemingly endless recruits would indicate a vibrant possibly strengthening insurgency. However, new information gathered from Zarqawri's bunker, and information from other raids as a result of that attack have brought us new information indicating great concern for the insurgency's strength. The things that where outlined in this information, such as success of coalition attacks, lack of new recuits, tighening of funds and arms are all signs of short term weakness which would mark the beginning of the end.. you wont see things like decreases in attacks for some time, when these weaknesses really take hold.

Is this long-term problems for Al Queda, or problems for the insurgency generally? The administration's protests to the contrary, the two are nevertheless quite distinct. Al Queda could very well fail to build a constituency in Iraq while an insurgency nevertheless continues to flourish.

Apparently, Zarqawi saw long term problems with the insurgency - and that was before he got killed and we got all that information out of his data drive.

No, it's not going to fall apart at any moment, but it's got only one thing going for it - the fact that Americans don't have any stomach for anything that involves long term fighting. So all they have to do is be assholes forever, and they win.
If I thought Zarqawi were half as important as everyone wants us to believe he was, perhaps I'd consider the matter a little differently, but the scope of the insurgency/civil war we're looking at looks to me like it's a lot wider than anything Zarqawi could have hoped to control. It's chaos over there, and the second the US leaves, there will be even more of it, full-on, out and out civil war. No more hiding behind the banner of insurgency then.

And I've said this for months now--the US is the focal point for Iraqi anger right now. If we pull out, the factions will turn on each other in a heartbeat and try to establish dominance. Whatever unity seems to exist right now only exists because the factions have a common enemy--the US.

Apparently, Zarqawi saw long term problems with the insurgency - and that was before he got killed and we got all that information out of his data drive.

Was a source for this cited in another thread?

No, it's not going to fall apart at any moment, but it's got only one thing going for it - the fact that Americans don't have any stomach for anything that involves long term fighting. So all they have to do is be assholes forever, and they win.

Unless one is immediately threatened or have been brought up in a harsh and brutal society where one does what one must to survive, people who have the stomach for long term fighting are few and far between.

You know, from the start, war critics like Nazz and I SAID that the Iraq adventure would be a long, arduous slog. The people who supported it (at least the majority of them,) seemed to think it would all be over relatively shortly, as the first Iraq conflict was. It was not the war critics who stated "Mission Accomplished". It was not the war critics who suggested that the insurgency would be over now that Saddam was captured. It was not the war critics who said, quite a while ago, that the insurgency was in it's last throes.

And now that Zarqawi has been killed, it is not the war critics who are jumping the gun by saying that now, really, we mean it this time, scout's honor, the insurgency is on it's last legs.

Gymoor, is it just me or are we like dating now? We seem to be paired up an awful lot lately. ;)

Gymoor, is it just me or are we like dating now? We seem to be paired up an awful lot lately. ;)

Maybe it's because we both look like Ann Coulter? What with the Adam's apples and all.

Maybe it's because we both look like Ann Coulter? What with the Adam's apples and all.
Nah, I'm heavy with a beard and glasses. That makes me Michael Moore.

Nah, I'm heavy with a beard and glasses. That makes me Michael Moore.

If Coulter and Moore got together, you'd either have the world's most balanced and impartial baby, or the biggest bullshit artist since the current administration.

Gymoor, is it just me or are we like dating now? We seem to be paired up an awful lot lately. ;)
*just don't bring up spooning*
:D

I'm sorry, I have no comment on the issue. I just had to stop by and imagine Nazz and Gymoor spooning for a sec. *imagines*

Ok I'm good now. *exits thread*

I'm sorry, I have no comment on the issue. I just had to stop by and imagine Nazz and Gymoor spooning for a sec. *imagines*

Ok I'm good now. *exits thread*
Atta girl. :)

Well, it would appear my "work" here is done.
*zooms off*

Nah, I'm heavy with a beard and glasses. That makes me Michael Moore.

And people actually tell me I look like Bill Mahr...usually right before I slug them. Oh, and when women get drunk, I start looking like David Duchovny or Jon Stewart, apparently.

And people actually tell me I look like Bill Mahr...usually right before I slug them. Oh, and when women get drunk, I start looking like David Duchovny or Jon Stewart, apparently.
That could be good. I usually get Silent Bob. I went as him for Halloween about 5 years ago--still my best costume ever.

That could be good. I usually get Silent Bob. I went as him for Halloween about 5 years ago--still my best costume ever.
So Nazz, do you take TG's?

If Coulter and Moore got together, you'd either have the world's most balanced and impartial baby, or the biggest bullshit artist since the current administration.
why not both?

a balanced and Impartial bullshit artist par none.

why not both?

a balanced and Impartial bullshit artist par none.

In order for there to be proper balance for a sitcom, the son of Michael and Ann should be an often-embarrassed, somewhat neurotic everyman type that both parents can accuse of being biased towards the other spouse. And they probably have a rebellious, cynical slut for a daughter.

And some kind of pet. Maybe a parrot.

In order for there to be proper balance for a sitcom, the son of Michael and Ann should be an often-embarrassed, somewhat neurotic everyman type that both parents can accuse of being biased towards the other spouse. And they probably have a rebellious, cynical slut for a daughter.

And some kind of pet. Maybe a parrot.
Two pets--a parrot and a weasel. They should be in love. But neutered.

Two pets--a parrot and a weasel. They should be in love. But neutered.
You f*cking bastard.
:(
How can you possibly intefere with nature like that?

And, are you gonna bother answering about TG's? I have a good reason this time.

You f*cking bastard.
:(
How can you possibly intefere with nature like that?

And, are you gonna bother answering about TG's? I have a good reason this time.
Yeah--I sent you one.

Yeah--I sent you one.
Ah. Danke. *bows*