NationStates Jolt Archive

when every single poll and the 2006 elections say that they don't. Who are these mysterious people he speaks of. I mean, if it were one biased liberal poll that suggested he was wrong then I would be inclined to agree with him. Hell, even the Army Times polls don't agree with him. How can he claim that he knows what the "American people" want when every single indicator says that he's wrong? I mean, how big a megalomaniac do you have to be?

Check out this line from President Bush's presser today:

He said:

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return to the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

Let's put aside for a sec the more transparent ruse here -- that the Dems are failing to fund the troops, when in fact they passed a bill doing just that. Instead, check out how Bush is still asserting that the approach being used by the Congressional leadership -- that is, tying troop readiness standards and a withdrawal deadline to funding -- is "unacceptable" to the American people. Or at least that he "believes" (weasel word) that it's unacceptable to them.

The reality, however, is that if Bush vetoes Congress' bill, it will be Bush who is failing to fund the troops in the fashion that the American people want him to. The American people strongly support the Dem Congress' efforts to tie a withdrawal deadline to troop funding.

Gallup poll, March 26:

Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq?

Requiring U.S. troops to meet strict readiness criteria before being deployed to Iraq: Favor 80%, Oppose 15%

Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq no later than the fall of 2008: Favor 60%, Oppose 38%

Polls also show strong public support for the House and Senate bills, both of which tie such conditions to funding. Pew poll, March 26:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

Newsweek poll, March 31:

This week the Senate joined the U.S. House of Representatives in passing legislation along party lines that included a "goal" for troop withdrawal by next March. A majority (57 percent) of Americans support the legislation.

This is the second time in under a week that Bush has suggested that public opinion is with him on Iraq. No one asked him at today's press conference why he keeps asserting this when it's entirely false -- which perhaps explains why he feels free to keep repeating it. Of course, he's also completely lost the argument with the American people on Iraq already. So maybe it doesn't really matter all that much if he keeps telling the same lie again...

...and again...

...and again...

...and...

...again...

...and...

a

g

a

i

n

.

.

.

Pfft.

because after 6 years of having a blank check drawn on congress he's facing opposition for the first time, and the dawning realization that the nation is no longer his plaything, and is desperatly trying to cling to any last shred of power as his term of relevance draws to a close.

1) He is out of touch with reality (very likely)

2) He is a liar (very likely)

1) He is out of touch with reality (very likely)

2) He is a liar (very likely)

Well, he is a politician afterall..

Because otherwise it wouldnt be democracy.

Because, in twenty years, they will.

You pick up a 2027 history book and tell me just how much it says about Bush's unpopularity. I'll be waiting.

Because, in twenty years, they will.

You pick up a 2027 history book and tell me just how much it says about Bush's unpopularity. I'll be waiting.

It usually takes at least twice that to get a hold on how the policies of a given president affect the nation, sometimes more. At the least, he will be a small blip(Depending on how long Iraq lasts), more likely he'll be regarded along the same lines as Nixon, only a tad more justified. He will likely be considered a rather poor President, I would think, with failing both national and foreign policies.

Because, in twenty years, they will.

You pick up a 2027 history book and tell me just how much it says about Bush's unpopularity. I'll be waiting.

What do you mean by that exactly? Are you insinuating that Bush will be praised as a foresight-endowed prophet by the American people in 20 years time? Or am I horribly wrong, and have somehow not seen your sarcasm?

hes a dumbass, 3 simple words, i think what he means is like "if jack supports the president he is an american, if jack opposes then he is not".....im sick of it....how did he get re-elected?

Because the people who weren't polled, clearly all agree with him. Those polls are just ploys of the vast leftist conspiracy to bring down Bush and the American Way (tm). I mean, how many people do those polls actually ask the opinions of? 1000? 10000? Clearly they only ask people whose responses they already know. It's all a carefully tailored plot to get people thinking that America disapproves of Bush, to make a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It usually takes at least twice that to get a hold on how the policies of a given president affect the nation, sometimes more. At the least, he will be a small blip(Depending on how long Iraq lasts), more likely he'll be regarded along the same lines as Nixon, only a tad more justified. He will likely be considered a rather poor President, I would think, with failing both national and foreign policies.
Internal policies -- the Patriot Act may be regarded as "necessary" in the aftermath of 9/11, although books will agree that it lasted too long; the dismantling of social programs will be quietly ignored or mentioned in parenthesis. Foreign policies -- it'll just say something along the lines of "Foreign leaders criticised the US for blablabla".

History will vindicate Bush through omission.

What do you mean by that exactly? Are you insinuating that Bush will be praised as a foresight-endowed prophet by the American people in 20 years time?
I note that my statement consisted of rather bitter sarcasm.

hes a dumbass, 3 simple words, i think what he means is like "if jack supports the president he is an american, if jack opposes then he is not".....im sick of it....how did he get re-elected?

Kerry was an unlikable dumbass.

hes a dumbass, 3 simple words, i think what he means is like "if jack supports the president he is an american, if jack opposes then he is not".....im sick of it....how did he get re-elected?

Ohio, "don't worry, we'll deliver the state for our guy" (Kenneth Blackwell) Before 2000 and 2004 how many contested elections did we have where widespread voter fraud was alleged? Can you name a time when we had two similar situations in a row? Historical outliers are just that for good reasons.

Kerry was an unlikable dumbass.

i dont know about u right now but id rather have a vietnam vet baby killer than a retarded texan as president right now especially now since there are russian reports of heighten amounts of US troop buildups on iran's border

Kerry was an unlikable dumbass.

well said and I totally agree

Ohio, "don't worry, we'll deliver the state for our guy" (Kenneth Blackwell) Before 2000 and 2004 how many contested elections did we have where widespread voter fraud was alleged? Can you name a time when we had two similar situations in a row? Historical outliers are just that for good reasons.

i love america

i love america

I love America too, I just hate the people in charge.

when every single poll and the 2006 elections say that they don't. Who are these mysterious people he speaks of. I mean, if it were one biased liberal poll that suggested he was wrong then I would be inclined to agree with him. Hell, even the Army Times polls don't agree with him. How can he claim that he knows what the "American people" want when every single indicator says that he's wrong? I mean, how big a megalomaniac do you have to be?

Check out this line from President Bush's presser today:

He said:

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return to the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

Let's put aside for a sec the more transparent ruse here -- that the Dems are failing to fund the troops, when in fact they passed a bill doing just that. Instead, check out how Bush is still asserting that the approach being used by the Congressional leadership -- that is, tying troop readiness standards and a withdrawal deadline to funding -- is "unacceptable" to the American people. Or at least that he "believes" (weasel word) that it's unacceptable to them.

The reality, however, is that if Bush vetoes Congress' bill, it will be Bush who is failing to fund the troops in the fashion that the American people want him to. The American people strongly support the Dem Congress' efforts to tie a withdrawal deadline to troop funding.

Gallup poll, March 26:

Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq?

Requiring U.S. troops to meet strict readiness criteria before being deployed to Iraq: Favor 80%, Oppose 15%

Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq no later than the fall of 2008: Favor 60%, Oppose 38%

Polls also show strong public support for the House and Senate bills, both of which tie such conditions to funding. Pew poll, March 26:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

Newsweek poll, March 31:

This week the Senate joined the U.S. House of Representatives in passing legislation along party lines that included a "goal" for troop withdrawal by next March. A majority (57 percent) of Americans support the legislation.

This is the second time in under a week that Bush has suggested that public opinion is with him on Iraq. No one asked him at today's press conference why he keeps asserting this when it's entirely false -- which perhaps explains why he feels free to keep repeating it. Of course, he's also completely lost the argument with the American people on Iraq already. So maybe it doesn't really matter all that much if he keeps telling the same lie again...

...and again...

...and again...

...and...

...again...

...and...

a

g

a

i

n

.

.

.

Pfft.

How many people were polled?

I love America too, I just hate the people in charge.

obama in '08?

obama in '08?

Certainly hope so.

i dont know about u right now but id rather have a vietnam vet baby killer than a retarded texan as president right now especially now since there are russian reports of heighten amounts of US troop buildups on iran's border

Oh, I would to. But if he wasn't able gain enough support, as he was an unlikable dumbass.

Really, I would have much rather had someone who was more than likely to screw alot up than someone who is definitely going to screw everything up.

How many people were polled?

I believe the numbers were somewhere over 1,000. And before we get into the "reliability of polls nonsense you must realize that statistics are representative samples of the overall population. That's why they work the way they do. The polling error might be +/- 4% but that still does not bode well for Bush. Believing the pulls is better than that empirical knowledge of....Bushite (The belief that as long as I believe it it's true. Sorry if I launched a pre-emptive strike against you, but I've seen enough people argue that "polls can't tell the truth man... yeah man...." The other justification for him being wrong is the total ass-raping the Republican party took in the 2006 election. How many people voted in those? Either way you cut it, the nation sure a hell isn't siding with W.

Oh, I would to. But if he wasn't able gain enough support, as he was an unlikable dumbass.

Really, I would have much rather had someone who was more than likely to screw alot up than someone who is definitely going to screw everything up.

i think kerry would have actually gotten involved in the war, im a pacifist but id rather have someone who knows what their doing running somthing than someone who just going to back up everything the sec of defense was doing

obama in '08?

I'm more of a Wesley Clark in 08 with perhaps Obama as a VP. Remember, this is coming from a Republican who just can't stand the way his party has gone. Hell, I even like Guiliani but I'm from NY so it might make me biased in his favor. Oh, and I loved him before 9-11 and not on his wagon.

Certainly hope so.

he may be "unexpirianced" but hes consistant, fox news has nothing on him, and hes black, all the reasons republicans hate him which makes him a good candidate for pres

I'm more of a Wesley Clark in 08 with perhaps Obama as a VP. Remember, this is coming from a Republican who just can't stand the way his party has gone. Hell, I even like Guiliani but I'm from NY so it might make me biased in his favor. Oh, and I loved him before 9-11 and not on his wagon.

i cant see a republican winning this election, if mccain does i already told my friends that im lighting myself on fire

he may be "unexpirianced" but hes consistant, fox news has nothing on him, and hes black, all the reasons republicans hate him which makes him a good candidate for pres

Yeah. Much better than Hillary.

Internal policies -- the Patriot Act may be regarded as "necessary" in the aftermath of 9/11, although books will agree that it lasted too long; the dismantling of social programs will be quietly ignored or mentioned in parenthesis. Foreign policies -- it'll just say something along the lines of "Foreign leaders criticised the US for blablabla".

History will vindicate Bush through omission.


I note that my statement consisted of rather bitter sarcasm.

I applaud your proficiency sir. I almost thought you were a Bushevik. My apologies. Would you perhaps wish to join this club of most learned gentlemen?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/153/3825~National-Sarcasm-Society-Posters.jpg

Yeah. Much better than Hillary.

yeah she actually supported the war in the beggining, bad choice....

I believe the numbers were somewhere over 1,000. And before we get into the "reliability of polls nonsense you must realize that statistics are representative samples of the overall population.

Depends on where you're polling. If you're polling in the deep south, you might get a different result than if you did up north.

That's why they work the way they do. The polling error might be +/- 4% but that still does not bode well for Bush. Believing the pulls is better than that empirical knowledge of....Bushite (The belief that as long as I believe it it's true. Sorry if I launched a pre-emptive strike against you, but I've seen enough people argue that "polls can't tell the truth man... yeah man...."

Well, first off, don't mistake me for a Bushite. I like the man's charisma, but his policies leave a lot to be desired, domestic OR foreign. His presidency hasn't been a particularly shining one. However, polls ARE a poor indication of anything, especially with a number as small as 1,000.

The other justification for him being wrong is the total ass-raping the Republican party took in the 2006 election. How many people voted in those? Either way you cut it, the nation sure a hell isn't siding with W.

This I agree with you on. This is how we know the American people are NOT with the president. I just felt like pointing out the original argument (based on polls) wasn't really effectively making your point (despite the fact that we know everybody in General thinks the president sucks).

Depends on where you're polling. If you're polling in the deep south, you might get a different result than if you did up north.



Well, first off, don't mistake me for a Bushite. I like the man's charisma, but his policies leave a lot to be desired, domestic OR foreign. His presidency hasn't been a particularly shining one. However, polls ARE a poor indication of anything, especially with a number as small as 1,000.



This I agree with you on. This is how we know the American people are NOT with the president. I just felt like pointing out the original argument (based on polls) wasn't really effectively making your point (despite the fact that we know everybody in General thinks the president sucks).


They were national polls so the geographic location means nothing. Further, studying statistics tells you that 1,000 is far more than enough a sample size to get an accurate indicator of opinion withing 3-4% so the argument would still hold water just based on polls. However, the election evidence is damning.

why does bush claim the "american people agree" with him?

because whenever he goes out to speak in public, the audience loves him and agrees with him TO A MAN.

i guess no one told him that they are handpicked audiences and that no one who disagrees with him is allowed in.

I applaud your proficiency sir. I almost thought you were a Bushevik. My apologies. Would you perhaps wish to join this club of most learned gentlemen?


I unofficially joined that almost five years ago, lol. I am, if not NS's, at very least this thread's resident cynic.

What do you mean by that exactly? Are you insinuating that Bush will be praised as a foresight-endowed prophet by the American people in 20 years time? Or am I horribly wrong, and have somehow not seen your sarcasm?Since the deer can not write, the hunters write the history.

when every single poll and the 2006 elections say that they don't. Who are these mysterious people he speaks of.
The ones who vote. The religious right has incredible voter turnout.

You obviously missed the John Bolton interview on The Daily Show. The president only answers to those people who voted for him.

America can be likened to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Its ire has been fueled by incendiary reports from vociferous liberals; seizing upon this opportunity, Americans have begun exerting their might in a cynical ploy for power. Deep down, they realize the wisdom of Bush's policies, but this deeply-entrenched truth is overshadowed by their irrational desire for action, or mob psychology if you will. Americans are being goaded like sheep into intensely reviling the president, and they adhere to this way of thinking because the overwhelming public current is pushing in that direction. They are overly respondent to this cheap ploy because it gives them an ephemeral sensation of sway and influence. Nonetheless, if allowed a moment's sober contemplation away from the media's blitz assaults against the president, they would realize that his measures are benefiting America. Like the toddler, if America is given a fifteen-minute time-out, it would come to terms with the president's policies. Bush can see past America's angsty facade and into its true ideology -- thus, he can safely state that America agrees with him.

America can be likened to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Its ire has been fueled by incendiary reports from vociferous liberals; seizing upon this opportunity, Americans have begun exerting their might in a cynical ploy for power. Deep down, they realize the wisdom of Bush's policies, but this deeply-entrenched truth is overshadowed by their irrational desire for action, or mob psychology if you will. Americans are being goaded like sheep into intensely reviling the president, and they adhere to this way of thinking because the overwhelming public current is pushing in that direction. They are overly respondent to this cheap ploy because it gives them an ephemeral sensation of sway and influence. Nonetheless, if allowed a moment's sober contemplation away from the media's blitz assaults against the president, they would realize that his measures are benefiting America. Like the toddler, if America is given a fifteen-minute time-out, it would come to terms with the president's policies. Bush can see past America's angsty facade and into its true ideology -- thus, he can safely state that America agrees with him.

Yes, every night I am lulled to sleep by my gratitude that we spend $500 billion a year on occupying foreign countries, rather than wasting that much money on feeding and educating Americans.

Yes, every night I am lulled to sleep by my gratitude that we spend $500 billion a year on occupying foreign countries, rather than wasting that much money on feeding and educating Americans.

I'm not insinuating that all Americans share that sentiment, but a substantial portion of them do. A minority of Americans genuinely loathe the president; however, most Americans do not.

I'm not insinuating that all Americans share that sentiment, but a substantial portion of them do. A minority of Americans genuinely loathe the president; however, most Americans do not.

I think you are talking out of your arse.

A moment ago, this was about Bush's policies, according to you. The evidence suggests you are (well) wrong... Bush has not scored that well on support for policies in almost half a decade - and now consistently get's mediocre support at best. His little war is currently so unpopular, he has replaced post-Watergate-Nixon in terms of popularity.

As for 'loathing' Bush, you might be right. Maybe less than half of the American people 'loathe' Bush - but that isn't important. He isn't in an office that should be affected by how much he is 'liked'. Two-thirds of people think he is doing a bad job - and that is far more important.

Two-thirds of people think he is doing a bad job - and that is far more important.

Yes, and I explained such seemlingly shocking statistics several posts ago. To recap shortly: Americans are persuaded by a type of mob pyschology to publicly "hate" Bush and everything he stands for while they are privately cognizant of the wisdom of his policies.

Yes, and I explained such seemlingly shocking statistics several posts ago. To recap shortly: Americans are persuaded by a type of mob pyschology to publicly "hate" Bush and everything he stands for while they are privately cognizant of the wisdom of his policies.

and your proof of this is...what, exactly?

And while you're off proving that, please explain why this did not occur with Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan etc etc etc.

Are we going to have a guessing game as to who is playing FreedomAndGlory? I'm guessing it is jesussaves' chestmate.

and your proof of this is...what, exactly?

I have acquired a "feel" for such things from talking with several individuals who claim they are opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq but, after a five-minute conversation, cede the point and admit that his policies might be correct, after all. Obviously, this is only anecdotal evidence; nonetheless, it is sufficient for me.

I have acquired a "feel" for such things

So you have no proof. I see

Obviously, this is only anecdotal evidence; nonetheless, it is sufficient for me.

I don't care whether it's good enough for you. Whether your anecdotal evidence is good enough for you is not relevant when you make the claim. The question is, is the anecdotal evidence, totally unverifiable, given by a stranger, who has a striking resemblance to a rather prolific troll good enough for me.

You fail.

Yes, and I explained such seemlingly shocking statistics several posts ago. To recap shortly: Americans are persuaded by a type of mob pyschology to publicly "hate" Bush and everything he stands for while they are privately cognizant of the wisdom of his policies.

Mob psychology accounts for why Americans supported Bush in the early days after 9/11. It is about the only way to explain why people didn't immediately see through the lack of evidence and the deperation for a war with an unrelated (to 9/11) sovereign power.

I conceded... it is eminently possible very few people 'hate' Bush. However, a lot of people are disenchanted by the concept of an unwinnable war... indeed, a war in which the term 'win' is meaningless. Many people are disenchanted by the continuing, and increasing, death tally of American servicemen.. in a 'war' with no agenda, and no forseeable end. Many people are unhappy with the current regime playing fast and loose with the Constitution. Many people are unhappy with the erosion of freedoms. Many people are unhappy with our international relationship.

It doesn't take 'mob psychology' to explain people becoming sick of corruption and stubborn refusal to face facts. o argue that this is the result of some secret agenda, is to risk placing yourself in the tin-foil hat partition.

I have acquired a "feel" for such things from talking with several individuals who claim they are opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq but, after a five-minute conversation, cede the point and admit that his policies might be correct, after all. Obviously, this is only anecdotal evidence; nonetheless, it is sufficient for me.

Of course it is. Any evidence, no matter how small or otherwise useless, would be sufficient for you. Just because a couple of people you know are easily manipulated by you doesn't mean the same applies to all of America. Get a freaking grip on reality.

Are we going to have a guessing game as to who is playing FreedomAndGlory? I'm guessing it is jesussaves' chestmate.
He sounds like MeansToAnEnd, sans the endorsement of slavery and dislike of Rosa parks, but that's just speculation.

You obviously missed the John Bolton interview on The Daily Show. The president only answers to those people who voted for him.

I WAS AMAZED by that interview. No matter how reasonable Stewart was, Bolton just basically sat there and said Bush SHOULD be surrounded only with people who agree with him. That's just so stunningly and brazenly arrogant and incorrect that I froze while watching it and had to re-heat dinner.

Yes, and I explained such seemlingly shocking statistics several posts ago. To recap shortly: Americans are persuaded by a type of mob pyschology to publicly "hate" Bush and everything he stands for while they are privately cognizant of the wisdom of his policies.

What is this "wisdom" of his policies you keep bleating about? Where? When?

I WAS AMAZED by that interview. No matter how reasonable Stewart was, Bolton just basically sat there and said Bush SHOULD be surrounded only with people who agree with him. That's just so stunningly and brazenly arrogant and incorrect that I froze while watching it and had to re-heat dinner.

Linky to the video please?

Linky to the video please?

Imagine any questions Stewart would ask about the Bush administration and Bolton's appointment. Now imagine the most ridiculous and incredulous answers possible. Now you can recreate it in your head.

America can be likened to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Its ire has been fueled by incendiary reports from vociferous liberals; seizing upon this opportunity, Americans have begun exerting their might in a cynical ploy for power. Deep down, they realize the wisdom of Bush's policies, but this deeply-entrenched truth is overshadowed by their irrational desire for action, or mob psychology if you will. Americans are being goaded like sheep into intensely reviling the president, and they adhere to this way of thinking because the overwhelming public current is pushing in that direction. They are overly respondent to this cheap ploy because it gives them an ephemeral sensation of sway and influence. Nonetheless, if allowed a moment's sober contemplation away from the media's blitz assaults against the president, they would realize that his measures are benefiting America. Like the toddler, if America is given a fifteen-minute time-out, it would come to terms with the president's policies. Bush can see past America's angsty facade and into its true ideology -- thus, he can safely state that America agrees with him.

blah blah blah liberals suck, blah de blah. Oh bla dee oh bla da life goes on------ Here once again are the problems with your hackery.

1. It's been four fricken years that this war has been going on. I hardly think a 15 minute time out compares to four years.

2. You can claim what you want about polls but what of the resounding ass whopping in 2006 that was a result of the President more so than any one candidate.

3. You assume that Americans are too stupid to figure things our for themselves. Can the "liberal media" crap and understand that we get it. We see how stupid this path is, and some of us have seen it from the beginning.

4. Keep your SAT words to yourself unless they serve some purpose. It's not only liberals who are reporting the terrible state of this war project, but people on all sides. You can rail against the liberals all you want, it won't make the reality go away. Just ask, "It's so safe I need a bulletproof vest, 5 black hawk helicopters, and 100 troops to keep me safe in the fricken green zone" McCain about how well things are going.

5. Saying "Just you wait and see" is not a debate strategy worth merit. We've seen the results of four years and guess what, we still don't think the idea has gotten better with age. It's not whine or cheese, it's fricken war.

6. At least you admit that people are overwhelmingly opposed to Bush and his plan.

7. Yeah, Fox News, Newsmax.com, The daily republic, Rush limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O'reilly, etc. are all part of the media's "blitc assault" against the President.

Finally, I call checkmate pawn as your argument has been sufficiently destroyed. See, no personal attacks here?

I'm not insinuating that all Americans share that sentiment, but a substantial portion of them do. A minority of Americans genuinely loathe the president; however, most Americans do not.

we don't have to loathe him, but we sure as hell don't agree with him. How you can even attempt to argue that bush is right that we "agree" with him just makes us laugh and cry at your mediocre opulence.

I have acquired a "feel" for such things from talking with several individuals who claim they are opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq but, after a five-minute conversation, cede the point and admit that his policies might be correct, after all. Obviously, this is only anecdotal evidence; nonetheless, it is sufficient for me.

"yea! I can bring two of my friends." Seriously, that isn't proof of dick besides you hang with weak-minded people who cannot debate their points.

Linky to the video please?

link (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=84011&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fshows%2Fthe_daily_show%2Fvideos%2Fcelebrity_interviews%2Findex.jhtml%3Fsicontent%3D 0%26sicreative%3D533111080%26sitrackingid%3D6405435%26kw%3Ddailyshowguests%26gclid%3DCNet9MKxqosCFR3 VgAodE0iuMg&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true)

I WAS AMAZED by that interview. No matter how reasonable Stewart was, Bolton just basically sat there and said Bush SHOULD be surrounded only with people who agree with him. That's just so stunningly and brazenly arrogant and incorrect that I froze while watching it and had to re-heat dinner.

I absolutely couldn't watch it. My mouth was agape until I changed the channel out of sheer disgust.

I absolutely couldn't watch it. My mouth was agape until I changed the channel out of sheer disgust.

I like when he had the foremost expert on lincoln on the show the next day to basically say "John Bolton, you're a mothertrucking idiot."

That interview does make one wonder what Bolton has been smoking for the last few years...

Stewart Colbert '08!

Bush's logic is simple - If you are an American you agree with him, if you don't agree with him, you're not American. Note, I don't say it's correct, just simple.

Dang, Stewart just owned him through that whole interview. If that guy was typical of our leaders, it's a wonder we're not more messed up.

'cuz maybe there are some american people who don't think he's "el diablo"

'cuz maybe there are some american people who don't think he's "el diablo"

It's not the point of whether he is the devil or not. The point is that the majority of American people DO NOT agree with him and yet he insists that they do.

when every single poll and the 2006 elections say that they don't. Who are these mysterious people he speaks of. I mean, if it were one biased liberal poll that suggested he was wrong then I would be inclined to agree with him. Hell, even the Army Times polls don't agree with him. How can he claim that he knows what the "American people" want when every single indicator says that he's wrong? I mean, how big a megalomaniac do you have to be?


While people want a withdrawal, it's probably VERY obvious (especially to the troops) that they don't want their funds cut from under them to force it.

On that point, Bush is right - the people don't want the funds slashed from underneath the troops.

A deadline - yes. A timetable for withdrawal - yes.

But don't think that you would want the funds cut from under the troops.

because he cares only about the ppl of texas.

So you have no proof. I see



I don't care whether it's good enough for you. Whether your anecdotal evidence is good enough for you is not relevant when you make the claim. The question is, is the anecdotal evidence, totally unverifiable, given by a stranger, who has a striking resemblance to a rather prolific troll good enough for me.

You fail.

I think the word for that is "Truthiness".

While people want a withdrawal, it's probably VERY obvious (especially to the troops) that they don't want their funds cut from under them to force it.

On that point, Bush is right - the people don't want the funds slashed from underneath the troops.

A deadline - yes. A timetable for withdrawal - yes.

But don't think that you would want the funds cut from under the troops.

As it stands, if Bush vetoes based on timetables... it will be him that cut funding. By your own argument, then... the people do not agree with him.

As it stands, if Bush vetoes based on timetables... it will be him that cut funding. By your own argument, then... the people do not agree with him.

Just remember what happened when Republicans tried the same thing with Clinton - when Clinton was less popular than Republicans at the time.

They blamed the Republican Congress.

Easy enough to do here.

What else can Bush say? That he is doing whatever the hell he wants no matter what anyone else thinks? Being the "Decider" has obviously gone to his head.

Though I must say that he is still a couple steps short of being a goat blood drinking devil. ;)

While people want a withdrawal, it's probably VERY obvious (especially to the troops) that they don't want their funds cut from under them to force it.

On that point, Bush is right - the people don't want the funds slashed from underneath the troops.

A deadline - yes. A timetable for withdrawal - yes.

But don't think that you would want the funds cut from under the troops.

But that's not what he said. He didn't say "The American people don't want the troops to lose funding (well duh)." What he says is, "The American people don't want a timetable for pulling out of my idiotic escapade." So, if you agree they want a deadline, they also want a timetable, and they want funding then they get it all with the bill that passed both the house and the senate. I also find it hard to swallow that Bush lies, "the money will run out by April 15th," when the GAO says it will last well into July for the current appropriations bill to run short. If Bush doesn't veto the bill do they receive funding? The answer is yes. all he has to do is stop being stubborn and listen to what the American public has said and everyone gets what they want. Troops get funding and the American Public get the troops out of Iraq by a reasonable date. I'm glad we agree.

But that's not what he said. He didn't say "The American people don't want the troops to lose funding (well duh)." What he says is, "The American people don't want a timetable for pulling out of my idiotic escapade." So, if you agree they want a deadline, they also want a timetable, and they want funding then they get it all with the bill that passed both the house and the senate. I also find it hard to swallow that Bush lies, "the money will run out by April 15th," when the GAO says it will last well into July for the current appropriations bill to run short. If Bush doesn't veto the bill do they receive funding? The answer is yes. all he has to do is stop being stubborn and listen to what the American public has said and everyone gets what they want. Troops get funding and the American Public get the troops out of Iraq by a reasonable date. I'm glad we agree.

I'm all for a timetable as long as it's top secret. No sense in telling the insurgents when we pull out, and no sense in staying any longer than necessary.

I'm not sure, however, how long any asshole on the Hill can keep their fucking mouths shut though.

Just remember what happened when Republicans tried the same thing with Clinton - when Clinton was less popular than Republicans at the time.

They blamed the Republican Congress.

Easy enough to do here.

It still doesn't change the reality of it all. Controlling Language is what the GOP under Bush, Rove, et al. think is what matters. Anyone remember the quote from a White House adviser, "we create our own reality?" The spending has been approved by congress and it will be Bush who denies the men and women he is always telling us to "support" the funds they need to fight. He's on an island and the water is creeping closer to him by the day. Hell, one they complete their investigations there will be more than enough evidence to impeach both he and Cheney. The strongest judge will be the "good lord Jesus" he likes to talk about but never emulate. Hope he ha a fire retardant flight suit on when he dies.

I'm all for a timetable as long as it's top secret. No sense in telling the insurgents when we pull out, and no sense in staying any longer than necessary.

I'm not sure, however, how long any asshole on the Hill can keep their fucking mouths shut though.

True, I'm concerned with the secrecy, the lies, and the God damn repetition of the talking points ad nausea.

It still doesn't change the reality of it all. Controlling Language is what the GOP under Bush, Rove, et al. think is what matters. Anyone remember the quote from a White House adviser, "we create our own reality?" The spending has been approved by congress and it will be Bush who denies the men and women he is always telling us to "support" the funds they need to fight. He's on an island and the water is creeping closer to him by the day. Hell, one they complete their investigations there will be more than enough evidence to impeach both he and Cheney. The strongest judge will be the "good lord Jesus" he likes to talk about but never emulate. Hope he ha a fire retardant flight suit on when he dies.

We're talking about the man you think is "so stupid" being elected twice.

Rather fairly, the second time around.

And remember how stupid the American people are.

It doesn't matter what the godless public thinks. God approves of George Bush and that's what's important.*


*This is not a dig at Christians, but a dig at Bush's delusions.

El Chupacabra.

Specifically the one from the really terrible movie on the cruise ship. You know the one, the one with John Rhys Davies. Yeah, that one.

Just remember what happened when Republicans tried the same thing with Clinton - when Clinton was less popular than Republicans at the time.

They blamed the Republican Congress.

Easy enough to do here.

We aren't talking about 'spin' are we? I thought we were talking about whether most Americans agree with Bush's policy? How you spin the blame doesn't impact that... it's just how you control the damage because of that.

I'm all for a timetable as long as it's top secret. No sense in telling the insurgents when we pull out, and no sense in staying any longer than necessary.

I'm not sure, however, how long any asshole on the Hill can keep their fucking mouths shut though.

There's no point in keeping a 'timetable' secret. If there is one, the precise dates aren't the big intelligence coup... the fact it exists, is.

As for the idea that "there is no sense in telling the insurgents when we pull out".... why? Surely, if it would mean they'd stop killing people - since the KNOW we are going - it would be a good thing?

This is the problem in Iraq... we have no mission.

We're talking about the man you think is "so stupid" being elected twice.

Rather fairly, the second time around.

And remember how stupid the American people are.

Rather fairly if you discount Ohio (Blackwell) and Florida the first time around. Who was the official winner when they counted those votes? Anyhow, we're not talking about how you spin bullshit, we're talking about the reality of the situation. The Democrats passed a funding bill that will give everyone what they want: 1. Timetable 2. Money. If Bush vetoes it then it will be he who is denying them funding. But hell, he already did that once.

We're talking about the man you think is "so stupid" being elected twice.

Rather fairly, the second time around.

And remember how stupid the American people are.

People in general are pretty stupid. The American people can be blindingly ignorant ontop of stupid. So that Bush pulled off 51% against Lurch isn't exactly surprising.

Kerry is a loser, good candidates rarely make it past the primaries.

We aren't talking about 'spin' are we? I thought we were talking about whether most Americans agree with Bush's policy? How you spin the blame doesn't impact that... it's just how you control the damage because of that.

No, we're talking about the limited attention span of the American people for strife on Capitol Hill, and the unlimited ignorance they show.

If you rant about something long enough up there, the American people get tired of hearing it, and demand that you do something else - otherwise, they blame you for the inaction.

Blame the legislators, that is.

time for work people, enough goofing around. Have fun having it out, I'll be back later.

No, we're talking about the limited attention span of the American people for strife on Capitol Hill, and the unlimited ignorance they show.

If you rant about something long enough up there, the American people get tired of hearing it, and demand that you do something else - otherwise, they blame you for the inaction.

Blame the legislators, that is.

Limited attention spans and/or unlimited ignorance are pink fish. Those might be the reasons why the American public disagree with Bush... or they may be the factors that will enable Bush to bulldoze on past this current slump... but, the fact remains, the assertion that Bush is currently supported (in his policy decisions) by the majority of Americans is clearly not even close to true.

'Currency' is key.

Because, in twenty years, they will.

You pick up a 2027 history book and tell me just how much it says about Bush's unpopularity. I'll be waiting.

Sort of like how everyone remembers the Vitnam war as a "popular war" ?

As for the idea that "there is no sense in telling the insurgents when we pull out".... why? Surely, if it would mean they'd stop killing people - since the KNOW we are going - it would be a good thing?
It is truly scary that people believe that. Do you honestly believe that they are fighting to get us out? They are fighting for their neighborhood against other neighborhoods trying to kill them. When we leave the only peacekeeping force is gone and the violence intensifies greatly.

This is the problem in Iraq... we have no mission.
Why do people think this? I would really like to know. Our missions is to provide for civil services, provide security for the sovereign Iraqi gov't, provide security to the Iraqi people and, most importantly, to train Iraqi forces.

Sort of like how everyone remembers the Vitnam war as a "popular war" ?

Who the hell remembers Vietnam as a popular war?

It is truly scary that people believe that. Do you honestly believe that they are fighting to get us out? They are fighting for their neighborhood against other neighborhoods trying to kill them. When we leave the only peacekeeping force is gone and the violence intensifies greatly.


People believe that 'they' are fighting to get us out for the simple reason that they keep trying to kill 'us'.

You may be right that there are other conflicts going on in the theatre, also - but it would be an object of ridicule to argue that there was no resistance to US occupation.

Yes, there is sectarian violence. Yes, this has escelated recently as we have pushed armed combatants out of their usual environments and into previously peaceful areas. But, this sectarian violence has been gradually increasing with the duration of occupation... whether you think 'they' are resisting 'us' or not, 'our' presence is oviously escalating other conflicts.

And, maybe that should be enough reason for us to get out. Maybe secatrian violence will climb... and the Iraqis will have to find a way to quell it - but, isn't that what we keep saying is supposed to happen anyway?

Or - maybe the sectarian violence will die down again once 'we' pull out. After all... it has escalated in direct relation to occupation.


Why do people think this? I would really like to know. Our missions is to provide for civil services, provide security for the sovereign Iraqi gov't, provide security to the Iraqi people and, most importantly, to train Iraqi forces.

Rubbish. That might be the propaganda... but there WERE civil services, security for government and people, and trained Iraqi forces BEFORE we got there.

A 'win' in Iraq, under those alleged goalposts, would mean we had 'won' before we started, and have been progressively getting further and further FROM 'winning'.

You may be right that there are other conflicts going on in the theatre, also - but it would be an object of ridicule to argue that there was no resistance to US occupation.
There is resistance but it is the extreme minority of violence. The majority of those who carry out these attacks are religiously motivated so leaving changes nothing.
Yes, there is sectarian violence. Yes, this has escelated recently as we have pushed armed combatants out of their usual environments and into previously peaceful areas. But, this sectarian violence has been gradually increasing with the duration of occupation... whether you think 'they' are resisting 'us' or not, 'our' presence is oviously escalating other conflicts.
Most of the "sectarian violence" has the real motive of gang wars and is using sectarian differences as ways to recruit.
And, maybe that should be enough reason for us to get out. Maybe secatrian violence will climb... and the Iraqis will have to find a way to quell it - but, isn't that what we keep saying is supposed to happen anyway?
Yes that is what is supposed to happen. However, the IA and IP are not ready yet. We can't let them on their own until they are ready.
Or - maybe the sectarian violence will die down again once 'we' pull out. After all... it has escalated in direct relation to occupation.
It has escalated in indirect relation to the amount of power held by the gov't. Us leaving will decrease that power even more.


Rubbish. That might be the propaganda... but there WERE civil services, security for government and people, and trained Iraqi forces BEFORE we got there.

A 'win' in Iraq, under those alleged goalposts, would mean we had 'won' before we started, and have been progressively getting further and further FROM 'winning'.[/QUOTE]

There is resistance but it is the extreme minority of violence. The majority of those who carry out these attacks are religiously motivated so leaving changes nothing.

Most of the "sectarian violence" has the real motive of gang wars and is using sectarian differences as ways to recruit.

Yes that is what is supposed to happen. However, the IA and IP are not ready yet. We can't let them on their own until they are ready.

It has escalated in indirect relation to the amount of power held by the gov't. Us leaving will decrease that power even more.


Rubbish. That might be the propaganda... but there WERE civil services, security for government and people, and trained Iraqi forces BEFORE we got there.

A 'win' in Iraq, under those alleged goalposts, would mean we had 'won' before we started, and have been progressively getting further and further FROM 'winning'.[/QUOTE]

BTW, Liuzzo claims to be a Marine. I think there should be an easy way to verify this.

Huh?

There is resistance but it is the extreme minority of violence.


Now that other violence has ramped,yes. However, viewed on it's own, the 'resistance' violence is much higher now than it was.

The fact that we've stuck a stick in a wasp nest, and now there is all kinds of crap going on as well as the them-and-us stuff doesn't alter the increasing violence of resistance.


The majority of those who carry out these attacks are religiously motivated so leaving changes nothing.


How do you know? It must have been 'religiously motivated' because.... they are Muslims?

I think you are confusing who is doing the bulk of the recruiting... with why people are getting recruited.


Most of the "sectarian violence" has the real motive of gang wars and is using sectarian differences as ways to recruit.


Nope - not buying it. The increase in violence in previously isolated areas, to coincide with the militants being forced out of 'hotspots' suggests that your version is (at best) simplistic.


Yes that is what is supposed to happen. However, the IA and IP are not ready yet. We can't let them on their own until they are ready.


And - if they never get ready? If they decide it's better to let foreigners die than their own?


It has escalated in indirect relation to the amount of power held by the gov't. Us leaving will decrease that power even more.


Even were that so (let's ignore the fact we made that political vacuum, shall we?), 'us leaving' would also give less incentive for resistance fighting... yes?


Rubbish. That might be the propaganda... but there WERE civil services, security for government and people, and trained Iraqi forces BEFORE we got there.

A 'win' in Iraq, under those alleged goalposts, would mean we had 'won' before we started, and have been progressively getting further and further FROM 'winning'.

Excuse me, sir - I think you dropped this.

Now that other violence has ramped,yes. However, viewed on it's own, the 'resistance' violence is much higher now than it was.
That is flat out untrue. There are no stats to back you up.
The fact that we've stuck a stick in a wasp nest, and now there is all kinds of crap going on as well as the them-and-us stuff doesn't alter the increasing violence of resistance.
I still don't know where you're getting this increasing violence bull from but w/e.

How do you know? It must have been 'religiously motivated' because.... they are Muslims?
I know because they are carried out mostly by religious extremist groups. Fair enough?

I think you are confusing who is doing the bulk of the recruiting... with why people are getting recruited.
You have no reason to believe that a groups members don't follow that groups stated mentality.

Nope - not buying it. The increase in violence in previously isolated areas, to coincide with the militants being forced out of 'hotspots' suggests that your version is (at best) simplistic.
How are you measuring these increases in violence? By U.S. casualties? Then yes the groups that are resisting the U.S. are religiously motivated and do move around the country where we are weakest.

And - if they never get ready? If they decide it's better to let foreigners die than their own?
They are dying also and on avg at a much higher rate. Of course last month was an anomaly.


Even were that so (let's ignore the fact we made that political vacuum, shall we?), 'us leaving' would also give less incentive for resistance fighting... yes?
Yes it would give less incentive for resisting. But as a said, the resistance isn't what is killing iraqi civilians.


Excuse me, sir - I think you dropped this.
Sorry, for some reason it appears that when i quoted you that part didn't come with it. Yeah those things were there but without freedom democracy.
Now that we have those things we are trying to get the others back.

Who the hell remembers Vietnam as a popular war?

http://radio.weblogs.com/0117471/images/myimages/sarcasm.gif

That is flat out untrue. There are no stats to back you up.


http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

General trend towards greater killed and injured, by day, by month, by year.


I still don't know where you're getting this increasing violence bull from but w/e.


As above.


I know because they are carried out mostly by religious extremist groups. Fair enough?


No. If a Christian shoots someone, is it because he is Christian?


You have no reason to believe that a groups members don't follow that groups stated mentality.


You have no evidence to prove that the motivation is religious.


How are you measuring these increases in violence? By U.S. casualties? Then yes the groups that are resisting the U.S. are religiously motivated and do move around the country where we are weakest.


Not just US casualties. I've been listening to the reports of civilian violence during this latest push. It's not hard to work out what is happening: troops force insurgents out of stronghold area... there is a sharp increase in sectarian violence in previously quiet areas around the stronghold...


They are dying also and on avg at a much higher rate. Of course last month was an anomaly.


And...?


Yes it would give less incentive for resisting. But as a said, the resistance isn't what is killing iraqi civilians.


But it is what is killing coalition troops.


Sorry, for some reason it appears that when i quoted you that part didn't come with it. Yeah those things were there but without freedom democracy.
Now that we have those things we are trying to get the others back.

And I'm sure all those people without food or electricity or water are just so glad they have 'the vote'.

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

General trend towards greater killed and injured, by day, by month, by year.



As above.
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_Chart.aspx
This graph clearly shows that there is no trend towards greater killed and injured coalition forces. If you want to talk civilian deaths then there really are no reliable statistics.

No. If a Christian shoots someone, is it because he is Christian?
If they belong to a group advocating killing in the name of jesus then probably.


You have no evidence to prove that the motivation is religious.
Except that the majority belong to groups who use religion as their motivation.


Not just US casualties. I've been listening to the reports of civilian violence during this latest push. It's not hard to work out what is happening: troops force insurgents out of stronghold area... there is a sharp increase in sectarian violence in previously quiet areas around the stronghold...
Yeah pretty much. Your point? I never argued against this to my knowledge.


And...?
They aren't letting us do all of the fighting as you claimed earlier.


But it is what is killing coalition troops.

And?

And I'm sure all those people without food or electricity or water are just so glad they have 'the vote'.

Maybe you don't know what it was like in Saddam's Iraq. Or maybe you deliberately "forget."

when every single poll and the 2006 elections say that they don't. Who are these mysterious people he speaks of. I mean, if it were one biased liberal poll that suggested he was wrong then I would be inclined to agree with him. Hell, even the Army Times polls don't agree with him. How can he claim that he knows what the "American people" want when every single indicator says that he's wrong? I mean, how big a megalomaniac do you have to be?

Check out this line from President Bush's presser today:

He said:

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return to the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war earlier than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

Let's put aside for a sec the more transparent ruse here -- that the Dems are failing to fund the troops, when in fact they passed a bill doing just that. Instead, check out how Bush is still asserting that the approach being used by the Congressional leadership -- that is, tying troop readiness standards and a withdrawal deadline to funding -- is "unacceptable" to the American people. Or at least that he "believes" (weasel word) that it's unacceptable to them.

The reality, however, is that if Bush vetoes Congress' bill, it will be Bush who is failing to fund the troops in the fashion that the American people want him to. The American people strongly support the Dem Congress' efforts to tie a withdrawal deadline to troop funding.

Gallup poll, March 26:

Would you favor or oppose Congress taking each of the following actions in regards to the war in Iraq?

Requiring U.S. troops to meet strict readiness criteria before being deployed to Iraq: Favor 80%, Oppose 15%

Setting a time-table for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq no later than the fall of 2008: Favor 60%, Oppose 38%

Polls also show strong public support for the House and Senate bills, both of which tie such conditions to funding. Pew poll, March 26:

A solid majority of Americans say they want their congressional representative to support a bill calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they would like to see their representative vote for such legislation, compared with just 33% who want their representative to oppose it.

Newsweek poll, March 31:

This week the Senate joined the U.S. House of Representatives in passing legislation along party lines that included a "goal" for troop withdrawal by next March. A majority (57 percent) of Americans support the legislation.

This is the second time in under a week that Bush has suggested that public opinion is with him on Iraq. No one asked him at today's press conference why he keeps asserting this when it's entirely false -- which perhaps explains why he feels free to keep repeating it. Of course, he's also completely lost the argument with the American people on Iraq already. So maybe it doesn't really matter all that much if he keeps telling the same lie again...

...and again...

...and again...

...and...

...again...

...and...

a

g

a

i

n

.

.

.

Pfft.

Does he know that? As King Bodacious once said, Bush doesn't pay attention to the polls.

http://icasualties.org/oif/US_Chart.aspx
This graph clearly shows that there is no trend towards greater killed and injured coalition forces.


Wow - you totally posted a source that doesn't say any of the things you claim. How are you wrong... let me count the ways:

1) It shows nothing about injured forces. You posted a graph of "Deaths by month".

2) It shows nothing about coalition forces. You posted a graph of "US deaths by month".

3) It isn't a straight line, and I never claimed it was - but the average has been increasing.

4) Picking 'by month' when the daily averages and yearly averages are climbing looks like you were trying to 'pander' the statistics to your (flawed) position. But, even by month, the tally gets higher with time (smoothing the statistical blippiness).


If they belong to a group advocating killing in the name of jesus then probably.


What if they just belong to a group that advocates serving Jesus... but some of them might think that an excuse to kill?


Except that the majority belong to groups who use religion as their motivation.


So you claim.


Yeah pretty much. Your point? I never argued against this to my knowledge.


Then I misunderstand - you appear to be arguing against it with: "Then yes the groups that are resisting the U.S. are religiously motivated and do move around the country where we are weakest".


They aren't letting us do all of the fighting as you claimed earlier.


I didn't claim that.

I'm speculating that - since you think we can pull out safely once Iraqi troops/police take over completely... it is possible that they will NEVER take over completely, while we are still there.


And?


And... clearly, putting our boys out of harms way will reduce the incentive to resist us... which is good, because it means less of us will be dead.


Maybe you don't know what it was like in Saddam's Iraq. Or maybe you deliberately "forget."

More people are dying now, than they were under Saddam. Sectarian violence is worse now, than it ever was under Saddam. The streets are not as safe now, as they were under Saddam.

You may try to paint the previous regime as monsters - and I'm not going to claim that Saddam was a saint - but they had water, power, food and jobs, the streets were safer, and there were less deaths. If Saddam's rule was the rule of a monster, what do you think of our job?

So - some of the population got to vote... was that a trade worth making?

Wow - you totally posted a source that doesn't say any of the things you claim. How are you wrong... let me count the ways:

1) It shows nothing about injured forces. You posted a graph of "Deaths by month".

2) It shows nothing about coalition forces. You posted a graph of "US deaths by month".

3) It isn't a straight line, and I never claimed it was - but the average has been increasing.

4) Picking 'by month' when the daily averages and yearly averages are climbing looks like you were trying to 'pander' the statistics to your (flawed) position. But, even by month, the tally gets higher with time (smoothing the statistical blippiness).
Since you are the one trying to prove something, you provide a graph that illustrates your point of view.


What if they just belong to a group that advocates serving Jesus... but some of them might think that an excuse to kill?
They believe in killing the infidel. So the only possible analogy would be to believe in killing non-christians for jesus and god.

I didn't claim that.

I'm speculating that - since you think we can pull out safely once Iraqi troops/police take over completely... it is possible that they will NEVER take over completely, while we are still there.
It is also possible that you will spontaneously combust in 3 seconds.


And... clearly, putting our boys out of harms way will reduce the incentive to resist us... which is good, because it means less of us will be dead.
And all of their energy will be focused on killing each other. I'm willing to die to save a few innocent Iraqis. Go figure.


More people are dying now, than they were under Saddam. Sectarian violence is worse now, than it ever was under Saddam. The streets are not as safe now, as they were under Saddam.
That is why we need to make them more safe.

You may try to paint the previous regime as monsters - and I'm not going to claim that Saddam was a saint - but they had water, power, food and jobs, the streets were safer, and there were less deaths. If Saddam's rule was the rule of a monster, what do you think of our job?
Yeah people had jobs. And if they fucked up then they were tortured. Women were free to go on dates on any night, and be date raped promptly there after. People had food, in their jail cells waiting to be executed for not having a picture of Saddam in their house.
So - some of the population got to vote... was that a trade worth making?
It will be.

Yeah people had jobs. And if they fucked up then they were tortured. Women were free to go on dates on any night, and be date raped promptly there after. People had food, in their jail cells waiting to be executed for not having a picture of Saddam in their house.

It will be.

That's not even Saddam's fault, that's the middle-eastern muslim culture's fault. That's how it is in many ME countries, but we didn't invade them, did we?

Since you are the one trying to prove something, you provide a graph that illustrates your point of view.


I already did, remember? I provided the page full of tables of statistics that show a progression in number of fatalities and injuries, of US servicemen and allies, in periods of average daily rates, average monthly rates and average annual rates.

Indeed, your 'evidence' (which didn't show what you claimed it did - but I notice you aren't addressing that) is from the site I introduced.


They believe in killing the infidel. So the only possible analogy would be to believe in killing non-christians for jesus and god.


Christians believe in 'not suffering a witch to live', and 'rebellion is as witchcraft'. In other words, Christians are not permitted to allow anyone that is non-Christian, to live.

You can get whatever you want out of scripture.


It is also possible that you will spontaneously combust in 3 seconds.


But, that isn't very likely. On the other hand - since Iraq still is failing to take any real share of the work, what assurance do we have that they ever will?


And all of their energy will be focused on killing each other. I'm willing to die to save a few innocent Iraqis. Go figure.


'Save'? They only need saving because we occupied their country, and toppled their control structure.

The same is true for EVERY US and coalition serviceman that has so far been in that theatre... Your presence there is killing Iraqis.


That is why we need to make them more safe.


Which isn't happening. You DO change horses midstream, if your horse is dead.


Yeah people had jobs. And if they fucked up then they were tortured. Women were free to go on dates on any night, and be date raped promptly there after. People had food, in their jail cells waiting to be executed for not having a picture of Saddam in their house.


I think this is full of crap. Some people were victims of a corrupt regime, sure... but the average Iraqi wasn't habitually tortured, date-raped or imprisoned.

On the other hand - it is now unsafe, in many parts of Iraq, to even leave your house. Hell - we've got US servicemen breaking into houses to rape them, so they aren't safe inside, either.


It will be.

When Jesus comes?

I just came to a fairly decent metaphor:

We are as close to "winning" in Iraq as NSG is as close to getting christians to admit there is no god.

I already did, remember? I provided the page full of tables of statistics that show a progression in number of fatalities and injuries, of US servicemen and allies, in periods of average daily rates, average monthly rates and average annual rates.
Write down what you see in a post b/c I can't find these mysterious numbers.

Indeed, your 'evidence' (which didn't show what you claimed it did - but I notice you aren't addressing that) is from the site I introduced.
It showed that there hasn't been an increase in KIA. The avg at the beginning of the war was a bout 2-2.5 a day and thats what it still is today.


Christians believe in 'not suffering a witch to live', and 'rebellion is as witchcraft'. In other words, Christians are not permitted to allow anyone that is non-Christian, to live.
And that is why I am agnostic.

But, that isn't very likely. On the other hand - since Iraq still is failing to take any real share of the work, what assurance do we have that they ever will?
Why do you fail!?!? They have taken the lead in several AO's. In others they are the only force and are doing just fine. And again in too many to count they are working as equal partners to coalition forces.



'Save'? They only need saving because we occupied their country, and toppled their control structure.
Shiias and Kurds would still be dying every day under Saddams regime. Women would still have no rights and wouldn't be going to school. And yes you can still save them. We provide security for schools and civil projects every day.
The same is true for EVERY US and coalition serviceman that has so far been in that theatre... Your presence there is killing Iraqis.
Our presence is killing the Iraqis who would do harm to Iraq. Iraqis handle the rest.


Which isn't happening. You DO change horses midstream, if your horse is dead.
Have you not noticed the extreme successes that we have been having in Anbar and in parts of Baghdad? We now have the majority of tribal leaders in Anbar on our side. Now it's only a matter of time in that region.


I think this is full of crap. Some people were victims of a corrupt regime, sure... but the average Iraqi wasn't habitually tortured, date-raped or imprisoned.
Yes they were. You should hear a shiia get going.


On the other hand - it is now unsafe, in many parts of Iraq, to even leave your house. Hell - we've got US servicemen breaking into houses to rape them, so they aren't safe inside, either.
We have criminals breaking into houses to rape them. I don't want to go into that in this thread but will leave it at this. The rate of rape is higher in Sweden than in Iraq by U.S. troops.


When Jesus comes?
When the streets are safe again and they are free.

To USMC:

What is "free"? What if, like in Lebanon, they elect a group of leaders that are representative of what the US considers to be terrorists?

Is that not democracy? What would you do, then? Fighting all this time for their right to vote, and they vote for terrorists. Re-invade, and tell them not to do stuff like that?

To USMC:

What is "free"? What if, like in Lebanon, they elect a group of leaders that are representative of what the US considers to be terrorists?

Is that not democracy? What would you do, then? Fighting all this time for their right to vote, and they vote for terrorists. Re-invade, and tell them not to do stuff like that?

My guess is that the Americans had thought in terms of political-party franchises. I mean c'mon, how many parties do you need? Coke, Pepsi... all bases covered right there.

*laughs*

My guess is that the Americans had thought in terms of political-party franchises. I mean c'mon, how many parties do you need? Coke, Pepsi... all bases covered right there.

*laughs*

Zing!

Kerry was an unlikable dumbass.

They're both unlikeable dumbasses. The difference would be if we switched one dumbass out with another then Dumbasses A & B would both be given a strong message that Dumbass A was being an exceptionally dumb dumbass and therefor Dumbass B would know to not do what Dumbass A was doing. Also, Dumbass B would have to worry about getting re-elected, whereas Dumbass A would not only be rewarded for being an exceptionally dumb dumbass but would also be written a blank check to be as much of a dumbass as he wants without consequence.
Thus why I believe while Kerry sucked, re-electing Bush was still a stupid idea. A dumbass with accountability is never as dangerous as a dumbass without it.

To USMC:

What is "free"? What if, like in Lebanon, they elect a group of leaders that are representative of what the US considers to be terrorists?

Is that not democracy? What would you do, then? Fighting all this time for their right to vote, and they vote for terrorists. Re-invade, and tell them not to do stuff like that?
To me personally, that is fine. As long as they don't take more power than anyone else would. To the U.S. gov't it is probably not acceptable. It isn't acceptable to them b/c of the threat of freedoms being taken away. I think that we should just build it into the constitution.

Shiias and Kurds would still be dying every day under Saddams regime.
.

Kurds were given the autonomous zone after Gulf one, covered by the no fly zone, so I really have no idea why you mention them.

Secondly Turkey, a US ally, kicks seven shades of shit out of Kurds in general and that doesnt seem to get a reaction.


Women would still have no rights and wouldn't be going to school.
.

For somebody who claims to be somewhat 'better informed' than most, thats rather a strange comment. Heres a few selected parts from a report on the matter -

The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property.

In order to further its program of economic development, the government passed a compulsory education law mandating that both sexes attend school through the primary level.9 Although middle and upper class Iraqi women had been attending university since the 1920s, rural women and girls were largely uneducated until this time. In December 1979, the government passed further legislation requiring the eradication of illiteracy.10 All illiterate persons between ages fifteen and forty-five were required to attend classes at local "literacy centers," many of which were run by the GFIW. Although many conservative sectors of Iraqi society refused to allow women in their communities to go to such centers (despite potential prosecution), the literacy gap between males and females narrowed.11

The Iraqi government also passed labor and employment laws to ensure that women were granted equal opportunities in the civil service sector, maternity benefits, and freedom from harassment in the workplace.12 Such laws had a direct impact on the number of women in the workforce.13 The fact that the government (as opposed to the private sector) was hiring women contributed to the breakdown of the traditional reluctance to allow women to work outside the home.14 The Iraqi Bureau of Statistics reported that in 1976, women constituted approximately 38.5 percent of those in the education profession, 31 percent of the medical profession, 25 percent of lab technicians, 15 percent of accountants and 15 percent of civil servants.15 During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), women assumed greater roles in the workforce in general and the civil service in particular, reflecting the shortage of working age men. Until the 1990s, the number of women working outside the home continued to grow.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

Do you think nothing happens without an American?


And yes you can still save them. We provide security for schools and civil projects every day.

Dear jesus no wonder the place is falling apart....

1) He is out of touch with reality (very likely)

2) He is a liar (very likely)


He's a out of touch liar with delusions of grandeur and a hunger to continue in power even though he knows his time is almost up! :p

To me personally, that is fine. As long as they don't take more power than anyone else would. To the U.S. gov't it is probably not acceptable. It isn't acceptable to them b/c of the threat of freedoms being taken away. I think that we should just build it into the constitution.

I'm sorry, but for them to truly have 'freedom', you and America can have NOTHING to do with their constitution, especially nothing in preventing certain people from being elected democratically.

BTW, Liuzzo claims to be a Marine. I think there should be an easy way to verify this.[/QUOTE]

No worried, this is just eve's way of trying to attack me because he can't ever win a debate against me. The easy way would be to shove my k-bar in his throat under the cover of night. USMC has my greatest repect, but you eve are a vile idiot. The truth is I'm a reservest who serves out of love for country. I spent time in this current conflict pre-war and during some reconstruction phases. USMC was arguing against grave and idle, but Eve wants to take time out to attack me. Eve, you are now and will always be a trolling flamer of the keyboard commando brigade.

To me personally, that is fine. As long as they don't take more power than anyone else would. To the U.S. gov't it is probably not acceptable. It isn't acceptable to them b/c of the threat of freedoms being taken away. I think that we should just build it into the constitution.

Look at the part highlighted.

There is a (theoretically) 'democratic' nation in which the incumbent regime is 'in breach' of your condition here. That 'regime' has opposed the idea that that nation can be governed according to it's constitution, and is absolving citizens of their rights as defined in that consitution.

What do you think we should do about it?

I think that we should just build it into the constitution.

And that would be freedom?

Well, I don't like your gun crazy american culture very much, maybe I should erase the bit about arms from your constitution, yes? :rolleyes:

Write down what you see in a post b/c I can't find these mysterious numbers.


The whole link. There are a number of tables - all of which show an escalation of violence.


It showed that there hasn't been an increase in KIA. The avg at the beginning of the war was a bout 2-2.5 a day and thats what it still is today.


The 'beginning of the war' (hmmm... was there even a formal 'Declaration of War'? in Iraq? I don't think so....) is an anomoly. I'm sure you know this already, of course. It doesn't fit the 'trend' of the rest of the data... as well it shouldn't - since it was talking about an entirely different theatre of operation.


And that is why I am agnostic.


So... your actions must be part of some Agnostic agenda?


Why do you fail!?!? They have taken the lead in several AO's. In others they are the only force and are doing just fine. And again in too many to count they are working as equal partners to coalition forces.


If everything is going as swimmingly as you claim, why are we even there?


Shiias and Kurds would still be dying every day under Saddams regime. Women would still have no rights and wouldn't be going to school. And yes you can still save them. We provide security for schools and civil projects every day.


Someone else beat me to it... Saddam was actually instrumental in overthrowing the fundamentalists, and empowering women.

You say "shiias and kurds would still be dying every day".... how is that different from the paradigm we have forced into place?


Our presence is killing the Iraqis who would do harm to Iraq. Iraqis handle the rest.


So - our presence catalyses violence against Iraqis.


Have you not noticed the extreme successes that we have been having in Anbar and in parts of Baghdad? We now have the majority of tribal leaders in Anbar on our side. Now it's only a matter of time in that region.


No. I haven't noticed that. And, no, I don't accept your blind faith. I remember the same kind of optimism when the talking point was Al-Sadr.


Yes they were. You should hear a shiia get going.


"She turned me into a newt!"


We have criminals breaking into houses to rape them. I don't want to go into that in this thread but will leave it at this. The rate of rape is higher in Sweden than in Iraq by U.S. troops.


And prison abuse. And faking evidence. And shooting unarmed casualties. And deliberate blue-on-blue. Let's not pretend we sent a heavenly host of angels.


When the streets are safe again and they are free.

Then our boys will never return, because the streets are never going to be 'safe' while coalition troops are catalysing militant factions throughout the Middle East by occupying a sovereign state.

Look at the part highlighted.

There is a (theoretically) 'democratic' nation in which the incumbent regime is 'in breach' of your condition here. That 'regime' has opposed the idea that that nation can be governed according to it's constitution, and is absolving citizens of their rights as defined in that consitution.

What do you think we should do about it?
If they have the majority of the people behind a constitutional change then so be it. But if not then it is the place of the U.N. to intervene if it so chooses.

If they have the majority of the people behind a constitutional change then so be it. But if not then it is the place of the U.N. to intervene if it so chooses.

So - you agree that Bush should be impeached? And, if not impeached - the UN should intervene?

Teh silent majority!!!

The whole link. There are a number of tables - all of which show an escalation of violence.
And yet you can't site any individual one. They just show the number of casualties. Not only is this not a good way to measure the strength of the insurgency but the graphs wouldn't show it even if it was.


The 'beginning of the war' (hmmm... was there even a formal 'Declaration of War'? in Iraq? I don't think so....)
How is that relevant to what we are debating?
I'm sure you know this already, of course. It doesn't fit the 'trend' of the rest of the data... as well it shouldn't - since it was talking about an entirely different theatre of operation.
Do you even know what the fuck a theater of operation is?


So... your actions must be part of some Agnostic agenda?
Am i part of an agnostic organization that says that all those who are religious should die? No, i'm not.


If everything is going as swimmingly as you claim, why are we even there?
There is progress but it is not perfect and there is still work to be done. But all you can see is in black and white. So it's either we are losing and everything is horrible or we are done and everything is perfect.:rolleyes:


Someone else beat me to it... Saddam was actually instrumental in overthrowing the fundamentalists, and empowering women.
That must be why he and his sons loved going around town picking up pretty ladies to rape and murder them.
You say "shiias and kurds would still be dying every day".... how is that different from the paradigm we have forced into place?
Exactly. You were saying that Iraq is worse now. Thanks for proving my point.


So - our presence catalyses violence against Iraqis.
Not at all. Our coming there originally allowed for a power vacuum that was filled by many small groups which committed violence against each other. Us leaving would do nothing to alleviate that situation.



No. I haven't noticed that. And, no, I don't accept your blind faith. I remember the same kind of optimism when the talking point was Al-Sadr.
And now Sadr is gone.

And prison abuse. And faking evidence. And shooting unarmed casualties. And deliberate blue-on-blue. Let's not pretend we sent a heavenly host of angels.
The prison abuse was a huge problem but to my knowledge that situation was been fixed. And the faking evidence and shooting unarmed ?casualties? goes with the rape. And i don't know of any deliberate friendly fire incidents. Maybe links?


Then our boys will never return, because the streets are never going to be 'safe' while coalition troops are catalysing militant factions throughout the Middle East by occupying a sovereign state.
And you base that assessment on what experience?


Edit: These posts are getting waaaay to long.

So - you agree that Bush should be impeached? And, if not impeached - the UN should intervene?

What constitutional amendment did he change w/o gov't approval?

What constitutional amendment did he change w/o gov't approval?

He (as far as i know) hasn't (officially) changed any consitutional amendments yet. His regime just choose to ignore the restrictions (theoretically) imposed by a constitution without any official amendment.

The Constitution says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

And yet, the current regime has opted to remove that right, and to continue suspending it. (You could argue that habeus corpus only applies to citizens - which would kind of fly in the face of consitutional language - but you'd be wrong: This year, the regime has stated that it believes 'habeus corpus' is not expressly guaranteed to citizens or residents, by constitutional language).


One could also point to the regime's warrantless wiretapping, which has been argued as breaching Article I and Article II of the Constitution, as well as the Fourth Amendment.

How is that relevant to what we are debating?
Do you even know what the fuck a theater of operation is?


Criticising the knowledge of others in the light of your ignorance re the Kurds and the status of women in Iraqi society would strike me as rather inappropriate, but don't let that stop you....


That must be why he and his sons loved going around town picking up pretty ladies to rape and murder them.

And here was have the "emotive straw man" which fails to address the issue or answer the points raised. Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the facts in the report?


Not at all. Our coming there originally allowed for a power vacuum that was filled by many small groups which committed violence against each other..

No, not quite. Try this - 'Our invasion, coupled with the incompetence of Bremners term as "Governor", directly resulted in the collapse of the various structures of the Iraqi state'


The prison abuse was a huge problem but to my knowledge that situation was been fixed. And the faking evidence and shooting unarmed ?casualties? goes with the rape. ..

"fixed" meaning outsourced to the Iraqis and this leading to our old friend 'plausible deniablity'?

Certainly the Iranians detained since 12 Jan might argue (had they contact with the outside world) that this is not quite the case. Not to mention the unknown persons in the various "black" facilities about the world.

And yet you can't site any individual one. They just show the number of casualties. Not only is this not a good way to measure the strength of the insurgency but the graphs wouldn't show it even if it was.


We weren't talking about 'the strength of the insurgency'. We were talking about the evidence of an increasing fatality and harm rate.


How is that relevant to what we are debating?


In a couple of ways, actually... we aren't bound by Geneva Conventions and Protocols if there was no formal 'Declaration of War', and we can't legitimately take 'Prisoners of War'. Not being bound by Geneva Conventions means we can shoot Iraqi civvies with impunity.


Do you even know what the fuck a theater of operation is?


Yes.


Am i part of an agnostic organization that says that all those who are religious should die? No, i'm not.


Sure you are. If you can state that all Muslims seek to 'kill for Allah' because you believe the Koran makes it alright... I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to you, also.


There is progress but it is not perfect and there is still work to be done. But all you can see is in black and white. So it's either we are losing and everything is horrible or we are done and everything is perfect.:rolleyes:


Your idea of progress, and my idea of progress are different. I will consider it 'progress' when people stop dying. You apparently consider mounting bodycounts on all sides as evidence of progress. Our perspectives are irreconcilable.


That must be why he and his sons loved going around town picking up pretty ladies to rape and murder them.


How anecdotal!


Exactly. You were saying that Iraq is worse now. Thanks for proving my point.


Iraq is worse... more Iraqis are dying now. In my book... that makes it worse.


Not at all. Our coming there originally allowed for a power vacuum that was filled by many small groups which committed violence against each other. Us leaving would do nothing to alleviate that situation.


That's a pretty story. I wonder if you can prove it. The rallying call for the 'insurgency' has been forcing out the American devils. That seems to imply the US occupation (at least) catalyses the violence.

How about - we withdraw our forces, and if everything doesn't calm down, we think about going back in?


And now Sadr is gone.


Or not. His council says he didn't flee to Iran.

Iran says he didn't flee to Iran.

The point was, however, this same unreasoning optimism was prevalent then... and not a dman thing changed, except that the killing has gradually gotten worse.


The prison abuse was a huge problem but to my knowledge that situation was been fixed. And the faking evidence and shooting unarmed ?casualties? goes with the rape. And i don't know of any deliberate friendly fire incidents. Maybe links?


It has been suggested that Pat Tillman was a victim of deliberate 'friendly fire'... not unreasonable considering the conspiratorial nature of his unit in hiding the evidence.

The trail appears to have been allowed to go cold, with no real action taken, and no real investigation. Once again, the army looks after it's own... well, except for the one it allowed to be fratricidally ousted.


And you base that assessment on what experience?


Are you saying that our government is lying to us? Do you honeslty believe all those fighting us in Iraq are natural born Iraqis? If not - you base your conclusion on the same evidence as I.

Criticising the knowledge of others in the light of your ignorance re the Kurds and the status of women in Iraqi society would strike me as rather inappropriate, but don't let that stop you....

And here was have the "emotive straw man" which fails to address the issue or answer the points raised. Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the facts in the report?
What report? Are you talking about the law that you or someone else brought up? Just because it was a law doesn't mean it was enforced. Most principals would not have a girl in their school.


No, not quite. Try this - 'Our invasion, coupled with the incompetence of Bremners term as "Governor", directly resulted in the collapse of the various structures of the Iraqi state'
Pretty much exactly what I just said. We came, we created a power vacuum, we're trying to clean up our mess.


"fixed" meaning outsourced to the Iraqis and this leading to our old friend 'plausible deniablity'?
Their country their prisoners. Right?

Certainly the Iranians detained since 12 Jan might argue (had they contact with the outside world) that this is not quite the case. Not to mention the unknown persons in the various "black" facilities about the world.
If they were in a foreign country without that countries approval then they should be detained.

And that would be freedom?

Well, I don't like your gun crazy american culture very much, maybe I should erase the bit about arms from your constitution, yes? :rolleyes:

Nothing ever gets done w/o people doing what they believe is right. If you really want to then go for it. You won't survive and you will accomplish nothing but it's your choice.

What report? Are you talking about the law that you or someone else brought up? Just because it was a law doesn't mean it was enforced. Most principals would not have a girl in their school..

According to...? I asked you why you don't address whats in the report and not only fail to do so again, but make another sweeping statement without any reference to numbers, dates, percentages........



Pretty much exactly what I just said. We came, we created a power vacuum, we're trying to clean up our mess...

But the American presence is in effect causing the "mess".



Their country their prisoners. Right?...

'plausible deniability' then so.


If they were in a foreign country without that countries approval then they should be detained.

I'm sure they should. However.....
Six Iranians held in a US military raid in northern Iraq were working there with the approval of the authorities, Iraq's foreign minister has said.
The Iranian liaison office in Irbil did not yet have full consular diplomatic status but it had been operating for years, Hoshyar Zebari said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6255335.stm

We weren't talking about 'the strength of the insurgency'. We were talking about the evidence of an increasing fatality and harm rate.
There isn't a increased fatality rate. Do the math and even if there was it is bad form to judge military operations based on casualties.


In a couple of ways, actually... we aren't bound by Geneva Conventions and Protocols if there was no formal 'Declaration of War', and we can't legitimately take 'Prisoners of War'. Not being bound by Geneva Conventions means we can shoot Iraqi civvies with impunity.
And all of the branches JAG offices still hold the military to those standards. That should tell you something.


Yes.
Then you know it hasn't changed b/c that makes absolutely no sense at all.


Sure you are. If you can state that all Muslims seek to 'kill for Allah' because you believe the Koran makes it alright... I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply to you, also.
Who said all muslims seek to kill for Allah? All i said was that those who belong to groups who profess that do. I don't see why that is so controversial to you.


Your idea of progress, and my idea of progress are different. I will consider it 'progress' when people stop dying. You apparently consider mounting bodycounts on all sides as evidence of progress. Our perspectives are irreconcilable.
There are 16 U.S. combat brigades and 2 regiments. There are 52 Iraqi brigades. That is almost a 3:1 ratio for more Iraqi troops. In 11 provinces the are only Iraqi forces w/ a limited amount or no coalition advisers. In 4 provinces there are a roughly equal number and in only 3 provinces is the IA, IP and iraqi border patrol relegated to a support role. That is progress whether you are going to cover your ears and shout or not.


How anecdotal!
How so?

Iraq is worse... more Iraqis are dying now. In my book... that makes it worse.
And in your book the American Revolution was not justified b/c people died. The french revolution was not justified b/c people died. Democracy would not exist w/o war and people willing to die for it.


That's a pretty story. I wonder if you can prove it. The rallying call for the 'insurgency' has been forcing out the American devils. That seems to imply the US occupation (at least) catalyses the violence.
When a sunni neighborhood decides to attack a shiite one it has nothing to do with us. To think that it does is insanity.
How about - we withdraw our forces, and if everything doesn't calm down, we think about going back in?
B/c that makes no tactical, operational or strategic sense.


Or not. His council says he didn't flee to Iran.

Iran says he didn't flee to Iran.

The point was, however, this same unreasoning optimism was prevalent then... and not a dman thing changed, except that the killing has gradually gotten worse.
I think this highlights the real problem here more than anything. You do not see when gains are made. You only get the chance to see casualty reports. Sadr City is turning out to be rather peaceful now. We have a solid presence there for the first time in a long time.


It has been suggested that Pat Tillman was a victim of deliberate 'friendly fire'... not unreasonable considering the conspiratorial nature of his unit in hiding the evidence.
No, it's pretty unreasonable. The army was still investigating. What you need to understand is that all the facts are not available right after something happens.
The trail appears to have been allowed to go cold, with no real action taken, and no real investigation. Once again, the army looks after it's own... well, except for the one it allowed to be fratricidally ousted.
You are not involved in the investigation, how could you possible know if the trail has gone cold?


Are you saying that our government is lying to us? Do you honeslty believe all those fighting us in Iraq are natural born Iraqis? If not - you base your conclusion on the same evidence as I.
The percentage of foreign fighters is extremely small and they are only fighting us, not the iraqi people.

He's delusional...

He's delusional...

Keep tellin' yourself that. I don't know how you'd sleep otherwise.

Keep tellin' yourself that. I don't know how you'd sleep otherwise.

No WMD, nor was there. No Al Qaeda link, nor was there. An even more paranoid Iran, an even more unstable middle east, and the reputation of the US at an all time low.....

I don't think its the critics that need to tell themselves things to help themselves sleep (except perhaps'hes gone soon, and maybe we can fix it then').

No WMD, nor was there. No Al Qaeda link, nor was there. An even more paranoid Iran, an even more unstable middle east, and the reputation of the US at an all time low.....

I don't think its the critics that need to tell themselves things to help themselves sleep (except perhaps'hes gone soon, and maybe we can fix it then').

I have stated over and over that the war was a mistake. That doesn't affect what we need to do now.

There isn't a increased fatality rate. Do the math and even if there was it is bad form to judge military operations based on casualties.


You are comparing two spikes and saying one isn't higher than the other. Statistically, the tendency is towards an increase, even if the case had been that half of the casualties happened in one cataclysmic event 2 hours into the 'war'.


And all of the branches JAG offices still hold the military to those standards. That should tell you something.


It does. It tells me that - just as with domestic life - not everyone is a crook. That is kind of irrelevent though. And... thinking about it - I'm not even sure it is true - so long as you can plausibly deny that you killed "Iraqi X" for shits'n'giggles, I suspect JAG pretty much have to suck it up... and I assume you do also detain people... whether or not you are taking 'POW's' per Geneva CaP.


Then you know it hasn't changed b/c that makes absolutely no sense at all.


It's a fluid thing. The theatre of the suppression is not the same as the theatre of the occupation.


Who said all muslims seek to kill for Allah? All i said was that those who belong to groups who profess that do. I don't see why that is so controversial to you.


I'm assuming, then - that every Iraqi 'insurgent' carries a paper to that effect? Because otherwise... you're guessing, right?


There are 16 U.S. combat brigades and 2 regiments. There are 52 Iraqi brigades. That is almost a 3:1 ratio for more Iraqi troops. In 11 provinces the are only Iraqi forces w/ a limited amount or no coalition advisers. In 4 provinces there are a roughly equal number and in only 3 provinces is the IA, IP and iraqi border patrol relegated to a support role. That is progress whether you are going to cover your ears and shout or not.


And how many of those Iraqis are 'fulltime'?

And you are shifting the goalposts again... why are we there, if the Iraqis have it in hand?


How so?


As in - it's an anecdotal piece of evidence. Possibly even urban legend.


And in your book the American Revolution was not justified b/c people died. The french revolution was not justified b/c people died. Democracy would not exist w/o war and people willing to die for it.


In my book 'justified' isn't relevent. The American Revolution was an insurgency, a minority of militants attacking the legitimate regime. The French Revolution is a better example, because that, at least, was a 'popular' revolution. Was it 'justified'? Who is to say - perhaps if less people died from it, than were dying before it?

"Democracy would not exist w/o war and people willing to die for it." Mor pretty words. They don't really mean anything, though. Not really relevent either.

And, as a thought that perhaps you hadn't considered... maybe 'democracy' just isn't 'right' for everyone?


When a sunni neighborhood decides to attack a shiite one it has nothing to do with us. To think that it does is insanity.


Not at all. If the coalition rpesence is what is causing the escalation of violence, then even the acts of sectarian conflict are aggravated by our presence.


B/c that makes no tactical, operational or strategic sense.


How not? Why does it not make any sense to withdraw?


I think this highlights the real problem here more than anything. You do not see when gains are made. You only get the chance to see casualty reports. Sadr City is turning out to be rather peaceful now. We have a solid presence there for the first time in a long time.


Sadr City is probably a really great place to take the kids now, sure. But that isn't because the problems have been fixed - it's because the problems have moved around a bit.

Pushing all the crap under your bed isn't tidying your room.


No, it's pretty unreasonable. The army was still investigating. What you need to understand is that all the facts are not available right after something happens.


The Army was aware that there had been a conspiracy to hide evidence when they made the formal statements and presented posthumous medals. The military chose not to reveal anything at that point. They are complicit in the crimes of the unit.


You are not involved in the investigation, how could you possible know if the trail has gone cold?


Becasue there were a couple of dismissive gestures of formal 'punishment' (literally 'dismissive'... they stopped four of the soldiers being Rangers, or something). They reched the end of their arc, and they pressed no real charges.


The percentage of foreign fighters is extremely small and they are only fighting us, not the iraqi people.

So - foreign fighters ARE coming to Iraq, JUST to engage in a war with coalition forces? Surely they wouldn't do that... if we weren't there?

Again though, how do you KNOW this? Is there a Syrian newsletter they send round to y'all telling you who the border-crossing militants are contracted to fight?

I have stated over and over that the war was a mistake. That doesn't affect what we need to do now.

You aint' kidding.

But Bush says he'll veto it.

Why does Bush claim the "American people agree" with him?

It's good politics. It may be bad governance, and a sign of an inability to listen, but since Chimpy has already decided to stay the course (and he doesn't listen to any critiscism at all), there is no benefit to him in admitting that he is universally loathed. Those supporters he has would desert him if he acknowledged his weakness.

And, uh, more Iraqi troops is only a good thing if the Iraqi army can be trusted. In case you hadn't noticed, members of the Iraqi army often have their own biases. We may well be training the combatants in combat for the decade of civil war to come.

You aint' kidding.

But Bush says he'll veto it.

Which is a good thing.

Which is a good thing.

Really?

You support a politician that chooses to vote against funding the troops?

I'll be sure to remember you said that.

Bush claims the American People agree with him because he actually believe that. He lives in a bubble where he has got people to "Catapult the propaganda" as it were...

He doesn't know better, and he doesn't WANT to know better. He believes. And as long as he has that belief he cannot go wrong...


That's what I think he thinks...

No WMD, nor was there.

And yet he somehow managed to use them against the Iranians in the 80s and the Kurds in the 90s. And the IAEA inspectors and UN sanctions in the early 90s were baseless. Shall I continue?

No Al Qaeda link, nor was there.

Correct, as far as we know. And yet, as far as we know, Saddam was a known supporter of terrorism in general.

An even more paranoid Iran, an even more unstable middle east, and the reputation of the US at an all time low.....

More paranoid than having a disgruntled Persian-hating dictator whose track record revealed a striking proclivity for acting in spontaneous self-interest as your neighbor?

The US reputation is always going to be low. We aren't helping our image, but hegemonic power begets dissatisfaction.

I don't think its the critics that need to tell themselves things to help themselves sleep (except perhaps'hes gone soon, and maybe we can fix it then').

Maybe it's "I'm doing what I can, so that you can sleep peacefully."

More paranoid than a disgruntled Persian-hating dictator whose track record revealed a striking proclivity for acting in spontaneous self-interest?


That's pretty harsh.

If you can't respect the man, at least respect the office. He's only got another year or so in the White House, after all.

How not? Why does it not make any sense to withdraw?





From a military perspective, it makes little sense to suddenly withdraw from the situation in Iraq. It makes some political sense, sure. Though no matter what happens, the world is going to hate the US for its course of action anyway.

That's pretty harsh.

If you can't respect the man, at least respect the office. He's only got another year or so in the White House, after all.

;) I do what I can.

From a military perspective, it makes little sense to suddenly withdraw from the situation in Iraq. It makes some political sense, sure. Though no matter what happens, the world is going to hate the US for its course of action anyway.

That's twice someone has said it isn't good sense... but still no reason.

Surely, if our troops are out of harms way, that's good for us?

And - just as surely, sooner or later the Iraqi forces MUST take over, whether or not we've killed/captured every 'insurgent'. (Which, if we are being realistic, isn't realistic).

Yes. You shall, especially since you need to convince us that Saddam had WMD after the year 2000! It doesn't matter if he had them before if he had destroyed them later.

Go on... We'll wait.

Indeed you shall. :) The quote, my good sir:


No WMD, nor was there (Bold Mine)

Look to your words, that's all I'm saying.


Which is a far cry from being in a operational relationship with one particular organisation...

Well, naturally.

That's twice someone has said it isn't good sense... but still no reason.

Surely, if our troops are out of harms way, that's good for us?

And - just as surely, sooner or later the Iraqi forces MUST take over, whether or not we've killed/captured every 'insurgent'. (Which, if we are being realistic, isn't realistic).

You're not going to like the explanation, probably. Three reasons I can think off the top of my head:
1) Logistics. Currently, and I don't know the exact number, but many of American troops are embedded in the Iraqi military. When you have a situation where troops are embedded like this, often they are under direct operational control of Iraqi commanders--and often not in easy communication with US COs. Extricating these soldiers is something that takes time--and would be a huge blow to the units they are working with, considering that they are there to aid and assist Iraqi forces.
2) Volatile area. Leaving Iraq now might get our troops out of harm's way, but anyone who knows anything about retreating--ref. Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, etc.,--realizes that there are very few cases in which losses are minimized and tactical control is maintained. The Korean War is one example, when ROK and UN troops maintained a fighting, cohesive retreat before pushing the North back.
3) Political ramifications. Let's suppose we do leave Iraq now. We begin the drawback, and in 6 months to a year we're out. Where does that leave us? The Iraqi government, if it somehow remains standing, points accusingly at our failure to maintain our commitment to fixing our problem, especially if sectarian violence escalates as it promises to do. Also, with the sectarian violence, right now US forces are the "mediator" per se. We strike at both Sunni and Shiite insurgents, whereas, each of the other sides of the conflict is increasingly targeting each other, and inherently distrustful. I've got some readings on fourth generation warfare in Iraq that delves more deeply in this, but for now I don't recall the minutiae.
There are other reasons, and these are not complete, but they are meant to be just basic ideas, so take that with a grain of salt.

And yes, we do need to transition the Iraqi army to take over the US task. And in big ways, we are--but it takes time, and other than that, I don't know why it's taking so long. I do agree that we should be playing up the Iraqi forces in countering the insurgency.

You are comparing two spikes and saying one isn't higher than the other. Statistically, the tendency is towards an increase, even if the case had been that half of the casualties happened in one cataclysmic event 2 hours into the 'war'.
Ummm, no. There is no tendency towards an increase. The monthly avg has stayed mostly the same with a few spikes and drops.


It does. It tells me that - just as with domestic life - not everyone is a crook. That is kind of irrelevent though. And... thinking about it - I'm not even sure it is true - so long as you can plausibly deny that you killed "Iraqi X" for shits'n'giggles, I suspect JAG pretty much have to suck it up... and I assume you do also detain people... whether or not you are taking 'POW's' per Geneva CaP.
And as long as you are making claims with no evidence you're opinion is worth nothing


It's a fluid thing. The theatre of the suppression is not the same as the theatre of the occupation.
Umm, a theater of occupation is a geographical area of operations for a large force. The theater of operations is the middle east. As long as the borders didn't change then it did not change.


I'm assuming, then - that every Iraqi 'insurgent' carries a paper to that effect? Because otherwise... you're guessing, right?
No, but believe it or not, there are ways to gather intelligence.


And how many of those Iraqis are 'fulltime'?
I told you how many IA brigades that there were. Not part time police
And you are shifting the goalposts again... why are we there, if the Iraqis have it in hand?
Because they don't have it in hand. Two of the provinces where we have equal numbers of forces are Baghdad and Anbar. We need to wait until the violence calms down and there is a greater Iraqi force presence.


As in - it's an anecdotal piece of evidence. Possibly even urban legend.

http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2006/11/torture-rape-and-murder-by-saddams.html


In my book 'justified' isn't relevent. The American Revolution was an insurgency, a minority of militants attacking the legitimate regime. The French Revolution is a better example, because that, at least, was a 'popular' revolution. Was it 'justified'? Who is to say - perhaps if less people died from it, than were dying before it?

"Democracy would not exist w/o war and people willing to die for it." Mor pretty words. They don't really mean anything, though. Not really relevent either.[/QUOTE]
And that is where our disconnect is. You place your life above the life of your children and I do not. How is it not relevant. There wasn't democracy in Iraq. Now there is and it came from war.
And, as a thought that perhaps you hadn't considered... maybe 'democracy' just isn't 'right' for everyone?
It is right for everyone it's just that there are some cultures that are not as receptive.


Not at all. If the coalition rpesence is what is causing the escalation of violence, then even the acts of sectarian conflict are aggravated by our presence.
The coalition invasion caused it. It is not causing it right now.


How not? Why does it not make any sense to withdraw?
B/c everything that we have fought for was worthless. We owe it to the Iraqi people to stick it out. We fucked their country now we have to fix it.


Sadr City is probably a really great place to take the kids now, sure. But that isn't because the problems have been fixed - it's because the problems have moved around a bit.
Name two large areas where there is increased violence in the past month. B/c Anbar and Baghdad are looking much better. Not done but better.

The Army was aware that there had been a conspiracy to hide evidence when they made the formal statements and presented posthumous medals. The military chose not to reveal anything at that point. They are complicit in the crimes of the unit.



Becasue there were a couple of dismissive gestures of formal 'punishment' (literally 'dismissive'... they stopped four of the soldiers being Rangers, or something). They reched the end of their arc, and they pressed no real charges.
Or maybe they found that it was an accident? But no that couldn't be possible. You had already made up your mind that they were guilty.


So - foreign fighters ARE coming to Iraq, JUST to engage in a war with coalition forces? Surely they wouldn't do that... if we weren't there?
Not to fight us but they probably would to try and get a foothold in iraq if we left.
Again though, how do you KNOW this? Is there a Syrian newsletter they send round to y'all telling you who the border-crossing militants are contracted to fight?
Docs secured in raids, interrogations, there being no records in Iraqi databases of their existence, there being records of them being the citizens of other countries. It's not complicated.

Indeed you shall. :) The quote, my good sir:

(Bold Mine)

Look to your words, that's all I'm saying.

I went to look to your words and mine, and I return less confused good sir!

I see your meaning now, and beg your pardon. I have misread your words and apologize profusely.

(So I shall not impugn your honour and demand a duel at dawn! Haha!)

Really?

You support a politician that chooses to vote against funding the troops?

I'll be sure to remember you said that.

Dem leaders have already said that the troops will get the funds no matter what. That and there are other ways for the Pentagon to get the money.

Dem leaders have already said that the troops will get the funds no matter what. That and there are other ways for the Pentagon to get the money.

Like door-to-door bake sales :)

Like door-to-door bake sales :)

How did you find out?:(

I went to look to your words and mine, and I return confused good sir! Perhaps thou willst shed some lite upon this conundrum?

I see your meaning now, and beg your pardon :) But do you or do you not claim that there were WMDs as claimed as a justification by Mr. Bush?

If you do not I have misread your words and apologize profusely.
If you do I shall impugn your honour and demand a duel at dawn! Haha!

Indeed I do not. I just know ( and expect ) I will be caught on misstatements of my own--and so, I capitalize on those of others whenever I can. Clearly, in the aftermath of the 2003 war, there are no WMDs in Iraq. Were there? Certainly. Were the justifications grounded? In hindsight, it appears not. And yet, there is something to be said when both the Bush and Clinton administrations acknowledge that Saddam was at least capable of producing WMDs, verified by the CIA and the German intelligence agency BND, among others. Also, you need only to look at the wording of Iraq justification: a [I]grave and gathering threat (versus a clear and present danger) to see that he did not possess the capability to inflict significant WMD damage at the time. Reasonable doubt and suspicion, however, suggested that given a few years', he would have. But preventive action (Iraq was NOT preemptive) is generally difficult to prove after anyway.

But I still want to duel. *throws glove on ground*

Like door-to-door bake sales :)

"Hi, I'm Susie. Would you like to buy some Pentagon cookies? The girls scouts have been drafted into service to fund the War on Terror." :)

And yet he somehow managed to use them against the Iranians in the 80s and the Kurds in the 90s. And the IAEA inspectors and UN sanctions in the early 90s were baseless. Shall I continue?."

The kurds were in the 80's as well. When he was a-ok by US standards.

None were found, none existed, nor did the production facilities that would required to produce them. Contrary to what some might think, they don't grow on trees.



Correct, as far as we know. And yet, as far as we know, Saddam was a known supporter of terrorism in general.

Its rather irrelevant, as a large range of states have done the same. He did not support Al Qaeda, and thats the false linkage that the US admin used to help push through support for the war.


AP) Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/iraq/main2655316.shtml


More paranoid than having a disgruntled Persian-hating dictator whose track record revealed a striking proclivity for acting in spontaneous self-interest as your neighbor?.

Indeed. They were undoubtedly aware, as was the British Government (and thus the US) that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours", that "regular army morale was poor" and support for Saddam among the public was "probably narrowly based."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece



Maybe it's "I'm doing what I can, so that you can sleep peacefully."

Why would tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and an unstable middle east aid my slumbers? What benefit would I gain from US "success" (a submissive US client state in the Gulf)?

How did you find out?:(
I just read those documents stamped "Secret" - it was all written down in detail there :)
Indeed I do not. I just know ( and expect ) I will be caught on misstatements of my own--and so, I capitalize on those of others whenever I can. Clearly, in the aftermath of the 2003 war, there are no WMDs in Iraq. Were there? Certainly. Were the justifications grounded? In hindsight, it appears not. And yet, there is something to be said when both the Bush and Clinton administrations acknowledge that Saddam was at least capable of producing WMDs, verified by the CIA and the German intelligence agency BND, among others. Also, you need only to look at the wording of Iraq justification: a [I]grave and gathering threat (versus a clear and present danger) to see that he did not possess the capability to inflict significant WMD damage at the time. Reasonable doubt and suspicion, however, suggested that given a few years', he would have. But preventive action (Iraq was NOT preemptive) is generally difficult to prove after anyway.
Thanks for the clarification. As you may or may not have noticed I have edited my posts to remove any evidence of my error... I mean, correct the wrong impression I might have made :p

But I still want to duel. *throws glove on ground*
Have at thee! http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/fence.gif

"Hi, I'm Susie. Would you like to buy some Pentagon cookies? The girls scouts have been drafted into service to fund the War on Terror." :)
Nobody can refuse the girl scouts! They are Americas last line of defense, and most secret weapon all rolled up into one!

What benefit would I gain from US "success" (a submissive US client state in the Gulf)?
Cheaper gas?

Indeed I do not. I just know ( and expect ) I will be caught on misstatements of my own--and so, I capitalize on those of others whenever I can. Clearly, in the aftermath of the 2003 war, there are no WMDs in Iraq. Were there? Certainly. Were the justifications grounded? In hindsight, it appears not. And yet, there is something to be said when both the Bush and Clinton administrations acknowledge that Saddam was at least capable of producing WMDs, verified by the CIA and the German intelligence agency BND, among others. Also, you need only to look at the wording of Iraq justification: a [I]grave and gathering threat (versus a clear and present danger) to see that he did not possess the capability to inflict significant WMD damage at the time. Reasonable doubt and suspicion, however, suggested that given a few years', he would have. But preventive action (Iraq was NOT preemptive) is generally difficult to prove after anyway.



Which would be all well and good, had the following kind of thing not been discussed prior to the invasion in July of 2002.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece?token=null&offset=12

Cheaper gas?

I'm not American.

Cheaper gas?

Oh well then. I can sleep soundly with Iraqi blood in my tank, yes siree.

I'm not American.

Doesn't matter. More supply equals lower price. And that is world supply.

Oh well then. I can sleep soundly with Iraqi blood in my tank, yes siree.

He asked what he would gain if we were successful. I told him. I didn't say anything else. Go fight whoever your looking for somewhere else.

Doesn't matter. More supply equals lower price. And that is world supply.

Somehow I doubt that the benefits would find their way to any great extent to the consumer, be it by restriction to the US, or by the various Governments of Europe absorbing it in increased "green" tax. As a non-driver any effects would only be available to me indirectly, in any event, by the influence on costs of services and industry.

He asked what he would gain if we were successful. I told him. I didn't say anything else. Go fight whoever your looking for somewhere else.

Sorry. I just think having to spend a few pounds less on my petrol is a pretty lame pay off for an increased threat of terrorism and of course, destabilising the Middle East.

Somehow I doubt that the benefits would find their way to any great extent to the consumer, be it by restriction to the US, or by the various Governments of Europe absorbing it in increased "green" tax. As a non-driver any effects would only be available to me indirectly, in any event, by the influence on costs of services and industry.

In the U.S., during the winter when demand is lower the price goes down so there has to be some elements of oil companies following economic principals even though they have a pretty non-elastic product. I wish I could be a non-driver. What city do you live in? Or are you too young to drive?

The kurds were in the 80's as well. When he was a-ok by US standards.

None were found, none existed, nor did the production facilities that would required to produce them. Contrary to what some might think, they don't grow on trees.

Read up on the Iran-Iraq War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Iraq had, and used, WMD, contrary to what some might think.

No, there were none in Iraq in 2003, but that's no what's being contested between us, is it? ;)



Indeed. They were undoubtedly aware, as was the British Government (and thus the US) that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours", that "regular army morale was poor" and support for Saddam among the public was "probably narrowly based."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece


Got any other fancy sources to suggest that Iran might be more paranoid now?





Why would tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and an unstable middle east aid my slumbers? What benefit would I gain from US "success" (a submissive US client state in the Gulf)?

You probably wouldn't gain anything. And most likely, that wouldn't aid your slumbers either, if I'm any judge. But then, I was referring to your post about telling yourself something before going to sleep. It may not be any help to you, but it sure as hell keeps the men and women in the field going day by day, that they are fighting for something, whether you agree with them or not.

Which would be all well and good, had the following kind of thing not been discussed prior to the invasion in July of 2002.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece?token=null&offset=12

I love how critics lambast Bush for being "stupid" and then expect him to be able to pull off a grand scheme that includes "fixing" twenty-odd years of intelligence from more sources than the NSC. Try again.

Sorry. I just think having to spend a few pounds less on my petrol is a pretty lame pay off for an increased threat of terrorism and of course, destabilising the Middle East.

No one said it wasn't lame. It was just an answer. And hopefully those other things are just temporary.

I love how critics lambast Bush for being "stupid" and then expect him to be able to pull off a grand scheme that includes "fixing" twenty-odd years of intelligence from more sources than the NSC. Try again.

The fixing would be the work of his cronies and buddies, not G. W. himself. He's got quite the entourage you know :)

Read up on the Iran-Iraq War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Iraq had, and used, WMD, contrary to what some might think.

Are you really so illiterate that you cannot understand basic English grammar. Because he is not fucking talking about then. He's talking about the time period before the war. It's called context. Learn about it.

In the U.S., during the winter when demand is lower the price goes down so there has to be some elements of oil companies following economic principals even though they have a pretty non-elastic product. I wish I could be a non-driver. What city do you live in? Or are you too young to drive?

Dublin. The times when I could claim youth as an excuse for anything are alas long gone.

Are you really so illiterate that you cannot understand basic English grammar. Because he is not fucking talking about then. He's talking about the time period before the war. It's called context. Learn about it.

Dude. Chill. It's okay, it's an anonymous user forum. No reason to get your panties in a twist. And if you could actually read, you would realize that he stated that there never were WMD in Iraq. Which is what I am contesting. Perhaps you should take lesson on English grammar and, lo and behold, you might discover that illiteracy occurs in those who fail to realize the full meaning behind their words, or who can't spell a coherent username. Your choice.

Read up on the Iran-Iraq War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

Iraq had, and used, WMD, contrary to what some might think.

No, there were none in Iraq in 2003, but that's no what's being contested between us, is it?

I just said that he used WMD on the Kurds in the 80's. You're quite aware of what I'm referring to. The WMD programme was destroyed/dismantled post Gulf 1.



Got any other fancy sources to suggest that Iran might be more paranoid now?;).

The fact that they elected a hard-liner as oppossed to a previously popular reformer would normally send a fairly obvious message. That and the tone of the new regime, particularily in regard to talks on its nuclear programme.



It may not be any help to you, but it sure as hell keeps the men and women in the field going day by day, that they are fighting for something, whether you agree with them or not.

Keeping people fighting in a bankrupt and discredited cause is not a good thing.
I love how critics lambast Bush for being "stupid" and then expect him to be able to pull off a grand scheme that includes "fixing" twenty-odd years of intelligence from more sources than the NSC. Try again..


The reference to the NSC was in conjunction with that organisations apparent unwillingness to either go to the UN or publish records of Saddams human rights abuses.
As the NSC had on it the Director of Central intelligence whose job it was to co-ordinate the various agencies and happened to be the CIA head George Tenent until 2004. its really a non-starter to start saying that its information was somehow seperate in the first place. I suggest that you "try again".

Dude. Chill. It's okay, it's an anonymous user forum. No reason to get your panties in a twist. And if you could actually read, you would realize that he stated that there never were WMD in Iraq. Which is what I am contesting. Perhaps you should take lesson on English grammar and, lo and behold, you might discover that illiteracy occurs in those who fail to realize the full meaning behind their words, or who can't spell a coherent username. Your choice.

Hes quite correct in that it should be apparent from the context what period I'm referring to, particularily given the statement I was answering. But as you seem hell-bent on evasion by semantics, I'd say you know that full well already.....

You're not going to like the explanation, probably. Three reasons I can think off the top of my head:
1) Logistics. Currently, and I don't know the exact number, but many of American troops are embedded in the Iraqi military. When you have a situation where troops are embedded like this, often they are under direct operational control of Iraqi commanders--and often not in easy communication with US COs. Extricating these soldiers is something that takes time--and would be a huge blow to the units they are working with, considering that they are there to aid and assist Iraqi forces.
2) Volatile area. Leaving Iraq now might get our troops out of harm's way, but anyone who knows anything about retreating--ref. Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, etc.,--realizes that there are very few cases in which losses are minimized and tactical control is maintained. The Korean War is one example, when ROK and UN troops maintained a fighting, cohesive retreat before pushing the North back.
3) Political ramifications. Let's suppose we do leave Iraq now. We begin the drawback, and in 6 months to a year we're out. Where does that leave us? The Iraqi government, if it somehow remains standing, points accusingly at our failure to maintain our commitment to fixing our problem, especially if sectarian violence escalates as it promises to do. Also, with the sectarian violence, right now US forces are the "mediator" per se. We strike at both Sunni and Shiite insurgents, whereas, each of the other sides of the conflict is increasingly targeting each other, and inherently distrustful. I've got some readings on fourth generation warfare in Iraq that delves more deeply in this, but for now I don't recall the minutiae.
There are other reasons, and these are not complete, but they are meant to be just basic ideas, so take that with a grain of salt.

And yes, we do need to transition the Iraqi army to take over the US task. And in big ways, we are--but it takes time, and other than that, I don't know why it's taking so long. I do agree that we should be playing up the Iraqi forces in countering the insurgency.

It's not a matter of whether or not I 'like' your arguments. I certainly don't 'accept' them, though.

I say we pull out the troops, you think I mean 'in six months, they are out'. On the contrary - I'm thinking more like, next weekend they are out. I see no reason why it should take longer. (And yes, obviously there are security risks to funnelling troops out - this is understood. If need be, we could ship them across borders to friendly airspace.

You are right, there could be political backlash at us 'abandoning' Iraq. On the other hand, there is already strong political backlash in the area, because of the invasion, and the continued occupation.

The Iraqi government can then point at us as the problem... well, we are! We made that situation. And, at the moment, the Iraqi government might be the only Iraqis that are not pointing to us as the biggest problem now. So - let the people have their way. Pul out, and let them have the courage of their convictions.

Ummm, no. There is no tendency towards an increase. The monthly avg has stayed mostly the same with a few spikes and drops.


If by 'mostly the same', you mean 'there has been a gradual escalation, overall', then we agree.

If you don't, I'm really not sure what I can say to you. The evidence is right there.


And as long as you are making claims with no evidence you're opinion is worth nothing


I'm not making claims. I had a thought, and asked a question in aside. If we did NOT issue a formal Declaration of War, we are not bound by Geneva Conventions and Protocols. That isn't a matter of opinion or debate.

I thought you were in the military?


Umm, a theater of occupation is a geographical area of operations for a large force. The theater of operations is the middle east. As long as the borders didn't change then it did not change.


Not strictly true, I would say. I would argue that the specific arenas of conflict, and the conflict paradigm also count.


No, but believe it or not, there are ways to gather intelligence.


More of your anecdotal evidence?


Because they don't have it in hand. Two of the provinces where we have equal numbers of forces are Baghdad and Anbar. We need to wait until the violence calms down and there is a greater Iraqi force presence.


You are telling two different stories. It's all fixed, but it's all broken. Pick a lane.


http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2006/11/torture-rape-and-murder-by-saddams.html


This source doesn't say any of the things you claimed. Not only that, but it is a blog... you are claiming a diary as your evidence?


And that is where our disconnect is. You place your life above the life of your children and I do not.


Where the hell did that come from? You would be uterly wrong, if that was your estimation.


How is it not relevant. There wasn't democracy in Iraq. Now there is and it came from war.


There still isn't democracy. While indiscriminate killings are 'democratic', a Civil War is not democracy.


It is right for everyone it's just that there are some cultures that are not as receptive.


Why? Why do you assume that a system of government that barely works even at village level, is perfect for every situation?Have you just blindly accepted the assertion, or have you actually thought about if there could be situations where 'democracy' would do more harm than good?


The coalition invasion caused it. It is not causing it right now.


No. There are still killings being caused because we are there. Thus, you are wrong.


B/c everything that we have fought for was worthless. We owe it to the Iraqi people to stick it out. We fucked their country now we have to fix it.


Everything we thought for was worthless. We allowed our President to initiate a fullscale invasion and occupation based on nothing. I'd say we've 'helped Iraq' enough.

If we 'help' them much more, they'll be extinct.


Name two large areas where there is increased violence in the past month. B/c Anbar and Baghdad are looking much better. Not done but better.


Why 'large areas'? One only has to look at the rise in violence in areas we aren't securing, and how it corresponds with the areas we have 'secured'. Yay, we've made these two towns look a bit better... but the price we've paid is war in streets that had been peaceful, elsewhere.


Or maybe they found that it was an accident? But no that couldn't be possible. You had already made up your mind that they were guilty.


If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't have lied.


Not to fight us but they probably would to try and get a foothold in iraq if we left.


Why? If people are being coscriptipted to fight the 'Great Satan' in Iraq, why do you assert they would keep coming after we leave?

And, don't you realise - if you are right about this, our 'mission' there can never be completed?

Dem leaders have already said that the troops will get the funds no matter what. That and there are other ways for the Pentagon to get the money.

Yes. The Democrats are bailing out the troops, because Bush puts his agenda above supplying the men in the field.

Incidentally - the Dems will have to start over if Bush kills this bill - that means borrow-spending, which means Bush's veto will cost military capacity to train troops for deployment.

I will be remembering that you supported the veto.

Yes. The Democrats are bailing out the troops, because Bush puts his agenda above supplying the men in the field.

Incidentally - the Dems will have to start over if Bush kills this bill - that means borrow-spending, which means Bush's veto will cost military capacity to train troops for deployment.

I will be remembering that you supported the veto.

Though, wouldn't it be better for congress to 'undeclare' war, yet still fully fund the troops.

Though, wouldn't it be better for congress to 'undeclare' war, yet still fully fund the troops.

Wouldn't it be best to bring the troops home, yet still fully fund the troops?

If by 'mostly the same', you mean 'there has been a gradual escalation, overall', then we agree.
There has not been an escalation of violence against U.S. troops which is all there are reliable statistics about. Write some real hard numbers that support your POV and don't just give a link and say find it.


I'm not making claims. I had a thought, and asked a question in aside. If we did NOT issue a formal Declaration of War, we are not bound by Geneva Conventions and Protocols. That isn't a matter of opinion or debate.
You made the assumption that we do not follow the Geneva Conventions even though we do not have to. That is a false assumption.




Not strictly true, I would say. I would argue that the specific arenas of conflict, and the conflict paradigm also count.
IDK what word you want but its not the one that you are using.


More of your anecdotal evidence?
If you consider good intelligence anecdotal evidence then sure.


You are telling two different stories. It's all fixed, but it's all broken. Pick a lane.
Again, you only see in black and white. We are making great progress but there is still progress to be made.



This source doesn't say any of the things you claimed. Not only that, but it is a blog... you are claiming a diary as your evidence?
If I am not mistaken it gives some background and gives a link to amnesty international about it.


Where the hell did that come from? You would be uterly wrong, if that was your estimation.
So you cover your ears and shout "no, no, no!!!" Real mature. They died so that their children could live in a free and prosporous society. You think that their death was a waste. Therefore, you think it is more important to preserve yourself than help your children.


There still isn't democracy. While indiscriminate killings are 'democratic', a Civil War is not democracy.
Yes, there is a democracy. What else do you call a society that votes. However there is still much violence. Democracy =/= peace.



Why? Why do you assume that a system of government that barely works even at village level, is perfect for every situation?Have you just blindly accepted the assertion, or have you actually thought about if there could be situations where 'democracy' would do more harm than good?
Why don't you highlight those situations.


No. There are still killings being caused because we are there. Thus, you are wrong.
There are coalition forces taking casualties because we are there. Not Iraqi deaths.


Everything we thought for was worthless. We allowed our President to initiate a fullscale invasion and occupation based on nothing. I'd say we've 'helped Iraq' enough.
If we 'help' them much more, they'll be extinct.
First of all, you didn't fight for anything so don't say "we". Second, you obviously do not care about innocent civilians if you want to leave right now.


Why 'large areas'? One only has to look at the rise in violence in areas we aren't securing, and how it corresponds with the areas we have 'secured'. Yay, we've made these two towns look a bit better... but the price we've paid is war in streets that had been peaceful, elsewhere.
And yet you still cite nothing:rolleyes:


If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't have lied.
Maybe they foolishly put PR above honesty? Maybe they tried to exploit a hero to build support? Neither of which are honorable or ethical but they are other explanations.


Why? If people are being coscriptipted to fight the 'Great Satan' in Iraq, why do you assert they would keep coming after we leave?
Because then they will be conscripted to kill the heretics or to be the start of a new caliphate.
And, don't you realise - if you are right about this, our 'mission' there can never be completed?
Train Iraqi forces to create an environment where this violence can't be sustained in the long term.

Wouldn't it be best to bring the troops home, yet still fully fund the troops?

No. Because if you think violence in two provinces is bad then just imagine what it would be like in 18.

Yes. The Democrats are bailing out the troops, because Bush puts his agenda above supplying the men in the field.

Incidentally - the Dems will have to start over if Bush kills this bill - that means borrow-spending, which means Bush's veto will cost military capacity to train troops for deployment.

I will be remembering that you supported the veto.

The military still has a few months of funds and a bill will pass before then.

No. Because if you think violence in two provinces is bad then just imagine what it would be like in 18.

And, if you think 'violence in two provinces' is good, just imagine what it would be like in none of them.

The military still has a few months of funds and a bill will pass before then.

The military still has a few months to pass an appropriation, but - since this was already budgetted, I'd be surprised if the military was not already borrow-spending.

And, if you think 'violence in two provinces' is good, just imagine what it would be like in none of them.

Which is why we can't leave before we have trained Iraqi forces to be able to win that fight. You have a tendency to argue for the opposing position. I like you.

The military still has a few months to pass an appropriation, but - since this was already budgetted, I'd be surprised if the military was not already borrow-spending.

Be surprised.

hes a dumbass, 3 simple words, i think what he means is like "if jack supports the president he is an american, if jack opposes then he is not".....im sick of it....how did he get re-elected?

How did he get elected? Oh right...stupid Florida.

There has not been an escalation of violence against U.S. troops which is all there are reliable statistics about. Write some real hard numbers that support your POV and don't just give a link and say find it.


It isn't a matter of 'find it' - the pattern is in every table I presented.


You made the assumption that we do not follow the Geneva Conventions even though we do not have to. That is a false assumption.


I didn't say that, either. Your strawman fallacies are hurting the consistency of the argument.

I said that, if we are not in a 'declared' war, we are not bound by GCaP... which is entirely true. I didn't say that we don't follow the conventions and protocols anyway, except where it is obviously the case - like taking POW's with formal declaration.


IDK what word you want but its not the one that you are using.


That's right. You don't know.


If you consider good intelligence anecdotal evidence then sure.


Good intelligence like the WMDs and the link to Al Qaeda?


Again, you only see in black and white. We are making great progress but there is still progress to be made.


I see it in black and white because it is a matter of life and death. To you, it may feel okay to kill people for no good reason. I don't much like the idea.


If I am not mistaken it gives some background and gives a link to amnesty international about it.


You are mistaken. It briefly mentions some incidents of rape as an interrogation tactic - which is nothing like the hysterical scenario you were painting.


So you cover your ears and shout "no, no, no!!!" Real mature. They died so that their children could live in a free and prosporous society. You think that their death was a waste. Therefore, you think it is more important to preserve yourself than help your children.


Who died so who's children could live in a 'free and propsorous society'? Our soldiers? I think not - our society has been historically in very little danger from Saddam and his internal politics.

I think that any pointless death is a waste... I don't see why you consider that a negative thing. On the other hand, if there was no way I could avoid the situation another way, I would give my life without pause to ACTUALLY protect my children (not some nebulous 'truth, justice and applepie bullshit to further someone's political career), so you are wrong. Again.


Yes, there is a democracy. What else do you call a society that votes. However there is still much violence. Democracy =/= peace.


What else do you call a society that votes? Fuedalism may or may not have elections. Republicanism has elections. 'Democracy' is only one of a number of 'voting' systems.

Democracy doesn't equate to peace, no - but any election that is carried out under such a pall of fear that you can't be sure how representational the numbers are, is not democratic.


Why don't you highlight those situations.


I assume that means you haven't, then.


First of all, you didn't fight for anything so don't say "we". Second, you obviously do not care about innocent civilians if you want to leave right now.


I can say 'we' - that is the beauty of representative government. Our government is answerable to 'all of us' (theoretically, at least), and you are a servant of our government'.

And don't preach to me about innocent civilians. Our boys are over there killing civilians.


And yet you still cite nothing:rolleyes:


Here's an audio link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9277316


Maybe they foolishly put PR above honesty? Maybe they tried to exploit a hero to build support? Neither of which are honorable or ethical but they are other explanations.


They carefully concealed the facts because this is an unpopular war, and they are finding it impossible to recruit already. If they have to admit the blue-on-blue death of a famous athlete, it's hardly going to help an already bad situation.

On the other hand - perhaps lying to cover up 'self-inflicted' casualties should never be tolerated?


Because then they will be conscripted to kill the heretics or to be the start of a new caliphate.


Isn't that why we are there? Isn't this Bush's caliphate?


Train Iraqi forces to create an environment where this violence can't be sustained in the long term.

And what - you think Iraqi forces outnumber other interested parties in the Middle east?

Which is why we can't leave before we have trained Iraqi forces to be able to win that fight. You have a tendency to argue for the opposing position. I like you.

You only think I'm arguing for the opposing position. Apparently, you don't 'get' my arguments... but that's okay.

Your assertion is that - if we leave, 2 provinces of conflict become 18. Prove it. Let's pull out, and see what happens.

Otherwise, all you have is hollow rhetoric.

Which is why we can't leave before we have trained Iraqi forces to be able to win that fight.

There was one. The US administration disbanded it remember?

Be surprised.

Bush himself said that current funding 'runs out' mid-April.

You honestly think both House and Senate can get a new appropriations bill through by a week from now? When THIS one isn't even on Bush's desk yet?

If we aren't literally on borrow-spend yet, we are in accounting terms

The Silent Majority agrees with President Bush!

[/Nixon]

The Silent Majority agrees with President Bush!

[/Nixon]

They're silent because they don't want anyone to know they agree with Bush.

It isn't a matter of 'find it' - the pattern is in every table I presented.
And yet you still can't point out one instance.


I didn't say that, either. Your strawman fallacies are hurting the consistency of the argument.

I said that, if we are not in a 'declared' war, we are not bound by GCaP... which is entirely true. I didn't say that we don't follow the conventions and protocols anyway, except where it is obviously the case - like taking POW's with formal declaration.
You said it to imply that we are not following it. Otherwise why would you have said it?


That's right. You don't know.
I'll take your lack of a non-rhetorical answer as validation for my argument.


Good intelligence like the WMDs and the link to Al Qaeda?
You are arguing that self-proclaimed terrorists don't want to kill for Islam but only to fight against us b/c we are there. They have fucking websites saying that you are wrong. We have informants that are saying that you are wrong. You are wrong.


I see it in black and white because it is a matter of life and death. To you, it may feel okay to kill people for no good reason. I don't much like the idea.
You know that that makes no sense. Thinking irrationally in black and white in a life and death situation is about the worst thing that you can do.


You are mistaken. It briefly mentions some incidents of rape as an interrogation tactic - which is nothing like the hysterical scenario you were painting.
There was a good history channel show about it. I'll try and find it for you.


Who died so who's children could live in a 'free and propsorous society'? Our soldiers? I think not - our society has been historically in very little danger from Saddam and his internal politics.
Revolutionary War era soldiers died so that their children could be free. Our personnel are now dying for the children of others. I see no difference.
I think that any pointless death is a waste... I don't see why you consider that a negative thing. On the other hand, if there was no way I could avoid the situation another way, I would give my life without pause to ACTUALLY protect my children (not some nebulous 'truth, justice and applepie bullshit to further someone's political career), so you are wrong. Again.
Would you give your life for the lives of children that are not your own? Because if yes then you would have to support OIF. There is no way to avoid the situation. The situation is a reality. If you wouldn't give your life then there is no way that i can respect you.


What else do you call a society that votes? Fuedalism may or may not have elections. Republicanism has elections. 'Democracy' is only one of a number of 'voting' systems.
And under all of those systems, minus fuedalism in some cases, the people are free which is the important thing. Also i equate Republicanism to Democracy because in our modern world the terms are often interchanged. No matter how inaccurate.
Democracy doesn't equate to peace, no - but any election that is carried out under such a pall of fear that you can't be sure how representational the numbers are, is not democratic.
As long as there is no way for the terrorists to see who voted for what (which there isn't) then that pall of fear doesn't exist.


I assume that means you haven't, then.
I assume that means that you blindly go against it.


I can say 'we' - that is the beauty of representative government. Our government is answerable to 'all of us' (theoretically, at least), and you are a servant of our government'.
We can all reap the benefits of what our country does but to say that you fought is just not truthful.
And don't preach to me about innocent civilians. Our boys are over there killing civilians.
I'll ignore that because you know that we are not targeting civilians. Yes the odd air strike kills civilians but it is because the insurgents are fighting in high density areas. The vast majority of civilian deaths are from terrorists.


Here's an audio link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9277316
I don't have time for it right now but I'll get back to you tomorrow.


They carefully concealed the facts because this is an unpopular war, and they are finding it impossible to recruit already. If they have to admit the blue-on-blue death of a famous athlete, it's hardly going to help an already bad situation.

On the other hand - perhaps lying to cover up 'self-inflicted' casualties should never be tolerated?[/QUOTE]
Exactly what I just said.



Isn't that why we are there? Isn't this Bush's caliphate?
Nope. Bush has no control over Iraq's government. We are there to finish creating a peaceful, prosperous and free Iraq.



And what - you think Iraqi forces outnumber other interested parties in the Middle east?
300,000 IA and IP. 20,000 insurgents and terrorists. Yes.

Revolutionary War era soldiers died so that their children could be free. Our personnel are now dying for the children of others. I see no difference..

Therein lies the problem. This is not the Normandy landings and D-day.


Nope. Bush has no control over Iraq's government. We are there to finish creating a peaceful, prosperous and free Iraq...

Now that really is delusional.

The Coalition Provisional Authority under Bremer issued 100 Orders, which they define as "binding instructions or directives to the Iraqi people that create penal consequences or have a direct bearing on the way Iraqis are regulated, including changes to Iraqi law".[22] The economic policies are largely based on free market ideas, emphasizing protection for foreign investors and contractors, while replacing the tax system with a highly regressive structure.

Order #39 allows for the following:
privatization of Iraqs 200 state-owned enterprises;
100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;
national treatment of foreign firms;
unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and
40-year ownership licenses.
Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat rate of 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspended all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods.
Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws.
Order # 81 prohibits Iraqi farmers from using the methods of agriculture that they have used for centuries. The common worldwide practice of saving heirloom seeds from one year to the next is now illegal in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_bremer#Bremer.27s_management_of_Iraq.27s_oil_revenue

Its a bannana republic of the old school.

They're silent because they don't want anyone to know they agree with Bush.

Hear hear.

Therein lies the problem. This is not the Normandy landings and D-day.
Who said anything about WWII?


Now that really is delusional.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_bremer#Bremer.27s_management_of_Iraq.27s_oil_revenue

Its a bannana republic of the old school.
That was under the now non-existent CPA. You are almost 3 years too late. Once Iraq had a gov't the CPA was disbanded.

Who said anything about WWII?
.

That would be a generally accepted example of fighting for others freedom.
Iraq is not.


That was under the now non-existent CPA. You are a few years too late. Once Iraq had a gov't the CPA was disbanded.

I suggest you reread, paying specific attention to the orders I posted with "American influence" in mind.

That would be a generally accepted example of fighting for others freedom.
Iraq is not.
By people that haven't been there. That is what we are fighting for every day when we are there. Though we aren't fighting for the freedom of Americans we are fighting for the freedom of other worthy people.


I suggest you reread, paying specific attention to the orders I posted with "American influence" in mind.
Unless I'm missing something big, those were orders given by the CPA which, along with it's orders, doesn't exist any more.

And yet you still can't point out one instance.


Tree. Tree. Tree. Tree. Tree.

Another Tree....

Tree. Tree. Tree. Tree.

Look, I just can't find this wood you are talking about.


You said it to imply that we are not following it. Otherwise why would you have said it?


Because it occurred to me, and we have freedom of speech? Because it seems connected that we HAD a 'war' against one man, who is now dead - yet we are still fighting. Because it seems connected that we now have a 'war' against civilians.


I'll take your lack of a non-rhetorical answer as validation for my argument.


It's the only validation your argument is going to get. I'd say claim all the support you can.


You are arguing that self-proclaimed terrorists don't want to kill for Islam but only to fight against us b/c we are there. They have fucking websites saying that you are wrong. We have informants that are saying that you are wrong. You are wrong.


And, only today, Al-Sadr mobilised 100,000 Iraqis that say I'm right.

I'll take 100,000 voices over your speculation.


You know that that makes no sense. Thinking irrationally in black and white in a life and death situation is about the worst thing that you can do.


On the contrary, not thinking in black and white terms, when lives are on the line, is illogical.


There was a good history channel show about it. I'll try and find it for you.


Yeah, you do that. Your one source so far turned to be about something different to what you had claimed... so we'll rely on a TV show...


Revolutionary War era soldiers died so that their children could be free. Our personnel are now dying for the children of others. I see no difference.


Revolutionary Era soldiers were terrorists and insurgents. Funny you don't mind it in them...

Our soldiers are not dying 'for the children of others'. They are dying for the price of oil. They are dying for the vanity of a politician. They are dying because no one ever votes an incumbent out during a war - even a made-up war like this.


Would you give your life for the lives of children that are not your own? Because if yes then you would have to support OIF. There is no way to avoid the situation. The situation is a reality. If you wouldn't give your life then there is no way that i can respect you.


I would give my life for my children. Someone else's children - I honestly don't know.

I certainly wouldn't fly thousands of miles to find something to die for.

If it means I 'lose your respect', by choosing to protect my family foremost... you should know that I'm not going to lose sleep over that. Indeed, I think it very selfish that so many of our 'children' are willing to put their families through this crap.


And under all of those systems, minus fuedalism in some cases, the people are free which is the important thing. Also i equate Republicanism to Democracy because in our modern world the terms are often interchanged. No matter how inaccurate.


So - you'll accept it because it's easy, and it doesn't matter if it's wrong.

Boy - you said a mouthful.


As long as there is no way for the terrorists to see who voted for what (which there isn't) then that pall of fear doesn't exist.


Don'' talk crazy. You think people were only worried about going to elections in a nation in civil war, because they were worried someone might see their ballots?


I assume that means that you blindly go against it.


No... but our government talks about 'spreading democracy' (ironic, in a republic) like it is the answer to all situations. That is hubris of an astronomical scale.

Maybe, sometimes, monarchy is right for a nation. Why do WE get to choose for someone else?


We can all reap the benefits of what our country does but to say that you fought is just not truthful.


Reap the benefits? Oil is more expensive. OPEC is reaping the benefits, I'm not. Our national tax bill is 500 BILLION dollars a year, just to support this war.

Where is the benefit?

To say I fought is not truthful. In this, at least, you are right. And, if there had been a draft, I'd have refused to go, and stood by the courage of my convictions. Because this 'war' was, and is, a 'wrong' war.

Of course - you are just a random internet dude (with a lot of sparetime...) to say you 'fought' is entirely speculatory too.


I'll ignore that because you know that we are not targeting civilians. Yes the odd air strike kills civilians but it is because the insurgents are fighting in high density areas. The vast majority of civilian deaths are from terrorists.


Of course we are targetting civilians.


I don't have time for it right now but I'll get back to you tomorrow.


Yuh huh.


Nope. Bush has no control over Iraq's government. We are there to finish creating a peaceful, prosperous and free Iraq.


And what, we have had no impact on their political process? They have created their fledgling 'democracy' aside from our interference?

Hell no, and you know it.

And, of course, they know what happens if they don't do EXACTLY what we say...


300,000 IA and IP. 20,000 insurgents and terrorists. Yes.

Amazing. You actually know how many terrorists and insurgents there are in the world? That's quite a gift.

Tree. Tree. Tree. Tree. Tree.

Another Tree....

Tree. Tree. Tree. Tree.

Look, I just can't find this wood you are talking about.
More nonsensical rhetoric taking the place of actual thought. B/c your post if full of this shit from now on if i put a "123" it represents what i have said here.


Because it occurred to me, and we have freedom of speech? Because it seems connected that we HAD a 'war' against one man, who is now dead - yet we are still fighting. Because it seems connected that we now have a 'war' against civilians.
You do not say things b/c you have a freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows you to say things b/c you have a reason to say them. You still don't seem the understand what is at stake if we leave.


It's the only validation your argument is going to get. I'd say claim all the support you can.
123


And, only today, Al-Sadr mobilised 100,000 Iraqis that say I'm right.

I'll take 100,000 voices over your speculation.
He didn't mobilize anyone. He told them that they should end sectarian violence and focus on us. That is something that I would like to see. It would unite them all and give them all the deep bond of fighting together.



On the contrary, not thinking in black and white terms, when lives are on the line, is illogical.
When there is time to think as in your situation it is best to think as deeply as you can. Thinking in black and white is just laziness.


Yeah, you do that. Your one source so far turned to be about something different to what you had claimed... so we'll rely on a TV show...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1660
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/12/02/iraq_report021202.html
Revolutionary Era soldiers were terrorists and insurgents. Funny you don't mind it in them...
They fought for freedom. The terrorists of today fight for oppression.
Our soldiers are not dying 'for the children of others'. They are dying for the price of oil. They are dying for the vanity of a politician. They are dying because no one ever votes an incumbent out during a war - even a made-up war like this.
And yet this war drives up the price of oil. But that just makes too much damn sense for you doesn't it.


I would give my life for my children. Someone else's children - I honestly don't know.
You really are pathetic.
I certainly wouldn't fly thousands of miles to find something to die for.
Nobody is looking to die. But if you need to sacrafice yourself to take a position and save lives then that is what I or any Marine that i have met will do.


So - you'll accept it because it's easy, and it doesn't matter if it's wrong.

Boy - you said a mouthful.
That isn't what I said at all but if you don't feel like reading then that is okay. 123


Don'' talk crazy. You think people were only worried about going to elections in a nation in civil war, because they were worried someone might see their ballots?
Well the turnouts were greater than in America...


No... but our government talks about 'spreading democracy' (ironic, in a republic) like it is the answer to all situations. That is hubris of an astronomical scale.
You would rather one person or one group of people making all of the decisions?
Maybe, sometimes, monarchy is right for a nation. Why do WE get to choose for someone else?
What monarchy have we overthrown?


Reap the benefits? Oil is more expensive. OPEC is reaping the benefits, I'm not. Our national tax bill is 500 BILLION dollars a year, just to support this war.
Which completely contradicts your earlier statement that the war is about oil.
Where is the benefit?
Having an ally in one of the most tumultuous places in the world or at least not a country not controlled by terrorists.
To say I fought is not truthful. In this, at least, you are right. And, if there had been a draft, I'd have refused to go, and stood by the courage of my convictions. Because this 'war' was, and is, a 'wrong' war.
Yeah I've always considered running away from helping where help is needed courageous also.
Of course - you are just a random internet dude (with a lot of sparetime...) to say you 'fought' is entirely speculatory too.
I'm recovering from wounds so I do have a lot of free time. I'd just give you my usmc.mil email account but i really don't trust the security of this site. It has my name in it and I would really rather not get in hot water for anything that I say.


Of course we are targetting civilians.
You know that is false. 123


Yuh huh.
They said that coalition casualties have lowered. They said that civilian deaths have increased 15% in recent years but we both know that those statistics aren't reliable at all.


And what, we have had no impact on their political process? They have created their fledgling 'democracy' aside from our interference?
We interfered in the beginning b/c there was no gov't. Now they make the decisions.


Amazing. You actually know how many terrorists and insurgents there are in the world? That's quite a gift.
In iraq not the world. And that is the current estimate.

More nonsensical rhetoric taking the place of actual thought. B/c your post if full of this shit from now on if i put a "123" it represents what i have said here.


I'm pointing out that I have presented you a site full of EXACTLY the evidence you demanded. Somehow, you don't seem to be able to connect that - I assume you are 'not seeing the wood for the trees'.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you. The data was there. If you can't directly refute it, it stands.


You do not say things b/c you have a freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows you to say things b/c you have a reason to say them. You still don't seem the understand what is at stake if we leave.


A wise philosopher once wrote: "Don't think 'cause I understand, I care".

I don't want political hollow-mouthed platitudes. I don't want this 'win in iraq' bullshit rhetoric. I don't want the vacuous "if we set a timetable they'll just wait till we leave' nonsense.

What is at stake if we leave, may turn out to be insignificant, against what is at stake if we don't.


He didn't mobilize anyone. He told them that they should end sectarian violence and focus on us. That is something that I would like to see. It would unite them all and give them all the deep bond of fighting together.


He didn't mobilise anyone? Maybe the chants I hear of "No. No To America! Yes. Yes to Muqtada!" mean something else to you?


When there is time to think as in your situation it is best to think as deeply as you can. Thinking in black and white is just laziness.


I don't think so. Life or death - sounds pretty back and white to me.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1660
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2002/12/02/iraq_report021202.html


Another blog. A source from 2002, and one from 2003 - neither of which backs the claims youmade... the actual nature of which I'm beginning to think you've forgotten, now. The other source is better, but - although governmental - it is both biased and false. Actually studying history shows that women were actually greatly emancipated when Saddam came to power, and didn't start losing ground till the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Add to that, even the government site doesn't back the specific claims you were making.


They fought for freedom. The terrorists of today fight for oppression.


Opinion. Insurgents trying to get the US out of Iraq are different to the US partisans trying to eject the Redcoats... how?


And yet this war drives up the price of oil. But that just makes too much damn sense for you doesn't it.


How so? Oilman president. Windfall profits in the oil industry... sounds like an incentive for war, maybe.


You really are pathetic.


Honest. I don't care if you think it pathetic. I could make comments about people who choose killing as a job. We don't have to like each other.


Nobody is looking to die. But if you need to sacrafice yourself to take a position and save lives then that is what I or any Marine that i have met will do.


Whatever floats your boat.


That isn't what I said at all but if you don't feel like reading then that is okay. 123


It is what you said. All I did was made it explicit.


Well the turnouts were greater than in America...


And that's impressive?


You would rather one person or one group of people making all of the decisions?


It would depend on the person and the people.


What monarchy have we overthrown?


Missing the point.


Which completely contradicts your earlier statement that the war is about oil.


How? I didn't start this war. I don't support it. Those who started it have a vested interest in windfall profits for oil.


Having an ally in one of the most tumultuous places in the world or at least not a country not controlled by terrorists.


But we aren't making allies... wd have alienated a region, instead.


Yeah I've always considered running away from helping where help is needed courageous also.


'Help' wasn't needed.

If you think objecting to a bad war is running away, I don't think much of your 'moral' code. That's the kind of logic that put Nazi bayonets through babies.


You know that is false.


No - I know exactly the opposite. I know that we are fighting civilians. Maybe you can explain how they are not civilians?


We interfered in the beginning b/c there was no gov't. Now they make the decisions.


Actually, when we first interferred, there was a government - we just didn't like it. So we toppled the legitimate government of a sovereign nation,and proceeded to smash up the entire governmental machinery.

Then we have the balls to stand here looking surprised? No wonder the world thinks America is either mad with power or just stupid.

They make the decisions - but we built their government, and we set their rules. And, if they oppose us, we'll kill them like we did their predecessors. Yeah... they make all the decisions...


In iraq not the world. And that is the current estimate.

I've seen intelligence estimates before. They are worth nothing. That's how we got in this mess, remember.

Add to which - why limit it to Iraqi insurgents... I thought you argued foreigners were coming in?

Revolutionary War era soldiers died so that their children could be free. Our personnel are now dying for the children of others. I see no difference.


Not really. To be technical, they are dying for the goals of the current commander in chief and his executive staff, which most likely does not include the care of children for others. The more pragmatic reason is dying for nation building goals, personal gain, and control of strategic assets. No one ever went to war for humanistic reasons, and if they say they did, they're a damned liar.

I can understand why you want to believe this isn't so, because of the severe morale problems it would cause, but that's the bare truth. War's ugly, and the reasons people go to war is even uglier.

They fought for freedom. The terrorists of today fight for oppression.


One man's freedom is another man's oppression they say. American rebels during the revolutionary war didn't fight for some vague thing called freedom. They fought for the right to self rule.

If terrorists of today fight against the local government in order to create their own nation on their own soil, how can you even think to have any sort of superior moral stance?

So what if they don't all line up on the battlefield anymore in neat little lines to be shot by other neat lines? Guerrilla warfare has always been the only way for small forces to beat superpowers. Victory by maneuver.

If you call those who fight for self-determination to be terrorist, you are no better than the British who sought to hold onto their American colonies.

Because it seems connected that we now have a 'war' against civilians.

Of course we are targetting civilians.

If you can find me any official statement that condones targetting civilians, or even any action against civilians approved by the chain of command, I'll fluffle you. And...give you a cookie.

Revolutionary Era soldiers were terrorists and insurgents. Funny you don't mind it in them...
Insurgents? Certainly--at least the Americans were. I don't think the British were, or the French, or the Spanish--they're all Revolutionary War era soldiers as well...Terrorists? Don't think so. Unless you are referring to certain actions perpetrated by the British against colonial civilians.


I would give my life for my children. Someone else's children - I honestly don't know.

Good thing you aren't a fireman.


No... but our government talks about 'spreading democracy' (ironic, in a republic) like it is the answer to all situations. That is hubris of an astronomical scale.

Surely, freedom is preferable to oppression. Yes, we are a republic--or a representative democracy. Still a form of democracy. Nope, no irony there.


Maybe, sometimes, monarchy is right for a nation. Why do WE get to choose for someone else?

Sometimes. Except when you are the sole hegemonic power, you get to make the rules. Not ideal, but it's reality.

To say I fought is not truthful. In this, at least, you are right. And, if there had been a draft, I'd have refused to go, and stood by the courage of my convictions. Because this 'war' was, and is, a 'wrong' war.

I wouldn't say the war was 'wrong.' Its execution, certainly, but I would file this under the 'justified' section.


And, of course, they know what happens if they don't do EXACTLY what we say...


What exactly are we saying? What, exactly, will happen if they don't "listen" to us? What happens, say, when the president condemns the US for its failure to provide adequate security? I don't think we told him to say that...but I could be wrong...

I'm pointing out that I have presented you a site full of EXACTLY the evidence you demanded. Somehow, you don't seem to be able to connect that - I assume you are 'not seeing the wood for the trees'.

I'm not going to spoonfeed you. The data was there. If you can't directly refute it, it stands.
The data shows that there has been no overall increase in coalition casualties. Unless I'm missing something on the site there is no graph showing what you claim so if there it would be good if you would post it. I'm here to learn as much as debate.


A wise philosopher once wrote: "Don't think 'cause I understand, I care".

I don't want political hollow-mouthed platitudes. I don't want this 'win in iraq' bullshit rhetoric. I don't want the vacuous "if we set a timetable they'll just wait till we leave' nonsense.
It isn't nonsense at all. It makes perfect strategic sense. Or is there someway that you can refute it?
What is at stake if we leave, may turn out to be insignificant, against what is at stake if we don't.
Millions dead, our enemies in power of a large nation or a military that will take a few years to get back up to top shape? I'll take the prior.


He didn't mobilise anyone? Maybe the chants I hear of "No. No To America! Yes. Yes to Muqtada!" mean something else to you?
He has been saying that for 3 1/2 years. Nothing changes.


I don't think so. Life or death - sounds pretty back and white to me.
Unfortunately, the conflict in Iraq is much more complicated than life or death.



Another blog. A source from 2002, and one from 2003 - neither of which backs the claims youmade... the actual nature of which I'm beginning to think you've forgotten, now. The other source is better, but - although governmental - it is both biased and false. Actually studying history shows that women were actually greatly emancipated when Saddam came to power, and didn't start losing ground till the Iran-Iraq conflict.

Add to that, even the government site doesn't back the specific claims you were making.
None of them were blogs and the things we are talking about happened pre-war so a source from 2002 or 2003 is perfectly acceptable. Yeah things that disagree with you would have to be biased right?


Opinion. Insurgents trying to get the US out of Iraq are different to the US partisans trying to eject the Redcoats... how?
B/c of the context. During the rev war, the US was fighting for independence against an oppressor who wanted to maintain control over them. In OIF, insurgents are fighting to return a country to an oppressive, restrictive and brutal government.


How so? Oilman president. Windfall profits in the oil industry... sounds like an incentive for war, maybe.
Maybe. I doubt it but it may have played a part in starting the war however that is irrelevant now. I do not answer for our civilian leadership.


Honest. I don't care if you think it pathetic. I could make comments about people who choose killing as a job. We don't have to like each other.
You know what I would say but fair enough.


It is what you said. All I did was made it explicit.
No, being submissive to someone else is easy.



And that's impressive?
:p The point is that intimidation did not play a large role in the elections. Iraqis turned out in huge numbers for every election.


It would depend on the person and the people.
I guess that that is just something that we are going to have to disagree on.


Missing the point.
It's happened before. And you should have said in the Rev War.;)



But we aren't making allies... wd have alienated a region, instead.
They were long alienated.


'Help' wasn't needed.
I could argue that but it isn't important. Now it is needed.
If you think objecting to a bad war is running away, I don't think much of your 'moral' code. That's the kind of logic that put Nazi bayonets through babies.
We are defending people who can't defend themselves. I don't know how you equate that to Nazis but w/e.


No - I know exactly the opposite. I know that we are fighting civilians. Maybe you can explain how they are not civilians?
They are civilians under the most general definitions but they are also murderers and criminals. Would you suggest that the police not go after them b/c they are civilians?


Actually, when we first interferred, there was a government - we just didn't like it. So we toppled the legitimate government of a sovereign nation,and proceeded to smash up the entire governmental machinery.
We didn't like it and neither did the Iraqi people. I personally feel that if you should do what you think is right as long as it is feasible that you will be successful. I think that we followed that in Iraq. It might not have gone to plan but that is why we need to still be there.

Then we have the balls to stand here looking surprised? No wonder the world thinks America is either mad with power or just stupid.
We're over the surprised stage. Now we are actively fixing the mistakes while people try to debilitate our efforts.
They make the decisions - but we built their government, and we set their rules. And, if they oppose us, we'll kill them like we did their predecessors. Yeah... they make all the decisions...
They made their own constitution. We did not. I really do not think that if their gov't decides democratically to move to a more theocratic way of doing things that we will intervene militarily. We might if we could but that would just be insane at this point.


I've seen intelligence estimates before. They are worth nothing. That's how we got in this mess, remember.
Intel estimates didn't get us into any messes. Bad intel period got us into messes.
Add to which - why limit it to Iraqi insurgents... I thought you argued foreigners were coming in?
They are included in that figure.



These posts are entirely too long. We are going to have to cut them down somehow.

One man's freedom is another man's oppression they say. American rebels during the revolutionary war didn't fight for some vague thing called freedom. They fought for the right to self rule.

Self-rule = freedom from oppression, at least in the case of the Revolutionary War. Yes, they did fight for freedom. It was a rallying cry, and we can bicker about the actual implications til the cows come home, but the soldiers believed they were fighting for freedom, and that is enough.

If terrorists of today fight against the local government in order to create their own nation on their own soil, how can you even think to have any sort of superior moral stance?

I wish we wouldn't claim the moral high ground. It would eliminate any pretense at moral superiority and give us enough flexibility to fully use superiority where we have it--warfighting.

So what if they don't all line up on the battlefield anymore in neat little lines to be shot by other neat lines? Guerrilla warfare has always been the only way for small forces to beat superpowers. Victory by maneuver.

No--maneuver is where the US military basically pwns. Otherwise known as 3rd generation warfare. The insurgents are in 4th generation warfare, which basically amounts to the superior knowledge of environment and using it. Think more VC in Vietnam and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

If you call those who fight for self-determination to be terrorist, you are no better than the British who sought to hold onto their American colonies.

Are terrorists really fighting for self-determination? Or just against America?

One man's freedom is another man's oppression they say. American rebels during the revolutionary war didn't fight for some vague thing called freedom. They fought for the right to self rule.

If terrorists of today fight against the local government in order to create their own nation on their own soil, how can you even think to have any sort of superior moral stance?

So what if they don't all line up on the battlefield anymore in neat little lines to be shot by other neat lines? Guerrilla warfare has always been the only way for small forces to beat superpowers. Victory by maneuver.

If you call those who fight for self-determination to be terrorist, you are no better than the British who sought to hold onto their American colonies.

They will have self-determination. That is the entire idea behind democracy. And there is a fine line between guerrilla war and chlorine bombing civilians.

Not really. To be technical, they are dying for the goals of the current commander in chief and his executive staff, which most likely does not include the care of children for others. The more pragmatic reason is dying for nation building goals, personal gain, and control of strategic assets. No one ever went to war for humanistic reasons, and if they say they did, they're a damned liar.

I can understand why you want to believe this isn't so, because of the severe morale problems it would cause, but that's the bare truth. War's ugly, and the reasons people go to war is even uglier.

IDC why Bush continues to sign the papers to keep fighting. I know why I fight.

Are terrorists really fighting for self-determination? Or just against America?

Depends upon what you want to believe.

Depends upon what you want to believe.

I think it matters more what they believe...so far, I've only heard cries (from terrorists) of "Death to America!" etc.

Why does Bush claim the "American people agree" with him?
Cause it sounds stupid to say: I did .......... but the people don't agree with me.

If you can find me any official statement that condones targetting civilians, or even any action against civilians approved by the chain of command, I'll fluffle you. And...give you a cookie.


Who do you think we are fighting in Iraq?

What would you say was their 'official' military status?


Insurgents? Certainly--at least the Americans were. I don't think the British were, or the French, or the Spanish--they're all Revolutionary War era soldiers as well...Terrorists? Don't think so. Unless you are referring to certain actions perpetrated by the British against colonial civilians.


Maybe not everyone was both insurgent and terrorist. The colonials were definitely insurgents. Both 'sides' terrorised civilians, when it suited the agenda - example - the massacre at Cherry Valley.

Terror, used as a weapon to affect the policies of a regime.


Good thing you aren't a fireman.


No - it's the reason I'm not a fireman. I wish no person harm, and - indeed, my daily job puts the (literal) lives of 27,000 people directly in my hands. I just wouldn't like to say I'd take bullets for them all.


Surely, freedom is preferable to oppression. Yes, we are a republic--or a representative democracy. Still a form of democracy. Nope, no irony there.


Why are the two choices 'freedom' or 'oppression'? A popular, benign dictator would not be an oppression... but it certainly wouldn't be (strictly) democratic. Given the advantages of dictatorial rule, it might certainly be the best thing for a given people, at a given time, also. (Cinncinnatus, or however you spell the dude's name, leaps instantly to mind).


I wouldn't say the war was 'wrong.' Its execution, certainly, but I would file this under the 'justified' section.


I would say it was wrong.

And, 'justified' doesn't make it right... the two aren't necessarily connected. Especially when we blindly ignore the 'justifications' elsewhere... why aren't we invading North Korea, China, the Sudan...? A combination of not-enough-reward, and fear of what would happen if we invaded someone that could actually resist.


What exactly are we saying? What, exactly, will happen if they don't "listen" to us? What happens, say, when the president condemns the US for its failure to provide adequate security? I don't think we told him to say that...but I could be wrong...

Let's explore it. The current Iraqi regime could turn around tomorrow and tell the US to leave.... what would happen?

What if the current regime in Iraq then invited decided on strict Sharia law?

Would we sit by and watch women enslaved and Kurds oppressed? Would we tolerate the genocide of Sunnis?

Self-rule = freedom from oppression, at least in the case of the Revolutionary War. Yes, they did fight for freedom. It was a rallying cry, and we can bicker about the actual implications til the cows come home, but the soldiers believed they were fighting for freedom, and that is enough.

Freedom was the rallying cry. No more, no less. It's like slogans and catchphrases. Empty words to turn everything you really want into easy to remember snippets.


I wish we wouldn't claim the moral high ground. It would eliminate any pretense at moral superiority and give us enough flexibility to fully use superiority where we have it--warfighting.

Except warfighting isn't what's needed at the moment. Peacekeeping is. Which the US categorically sucks at in areas with resistance.


No--maneuver is where the US military basically pwns. Otherwise known as 3rd generation warfare. The insurgents are in 4th generation warfare, which basically amounts to the superior knowledge of environment and using it. Think more VC in Vietnam and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Fair enough. I was thinking a combination of maneuver and local environment knowledge rather than brute force maneuver (airpower).


Are terrorists really fighting for self-determination? Or just against America?

Can't say I know about all terrorists, but it's ludicrous to say they're all fighting America cause they want a fight.

Besides, America is currently sitting in Iraq as an occupational force. Can't really say that none of the local insurgency is fighting for self-determination against the American occupier now can we?

They will have self-determination. That is the entire idea behind democracy. And there is a fine line between guerrilla war and chlorine bombing civilians.

Not really. Guerrilla warfare demands that you must be able to fade into the environment while able to strike with a minimal of outlay at risk, making you too hard to completely kill and too expensive to keep fighting. In highly urbanized settings where local environment is too hard to blend into without the consent of the population, the only way to achieve this is by the support of the people, or by coercing them into it with an environment of fear.

The NVA had dense jungles and extensive bomb proof tunnel networks to hide the majority of their forces and operations. However, Iraq is somewhat lacking in jungles and digging tunnels is hard to hide. That means they have to blend into the local population.

Intent is what matters in the situation, not that it excuses it, but it defines it.

Now you may argue that intent does not matter due to results, but if so, I point you to the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and the destruction of German dams, flooding many areas.

The hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths were accepted, passed off as collateral damage because of the intent. Which was the destruction of production capacity, and to wage war.

Can you really argue that cowing the populace to hide a guerrilla force with violence is somehow worst than firebombing entire cities as part of a war?

IDC why Bush continues to sign the papers to keep fighting. I know why I fight.

And Bush ultimately orders you to fight where and when at his pleasure. Everyone has their own reasons for fighting, but as a soldier, the ultimate, overarching reason that one fights is because his commander commands it.

And Bush is your commander, like it or not.

Or are you telling me that if Bush didn't command this, you would have gone all by yourself to Iraq?

The data shows that there has been no overall increase in coalition casualties. Unless I'm missing something on the site there is no graph showing what you claim so if there it would be good if you would post it. I'm here to learn as much as debate.


I didn't look for graphs. I found the evidence in tabular form, which you seem to ignore for some reason. I guess you just like graphs...?


It isn't nonsense at all. It makes perfect strategic sense. Or is there someway that you can refute it?


I don't have to refute it. If the resistance stopped, and Iraq went quiet tonight, the last few soldiers were trained up - we'd have no legitimate argument for staying.

What would be our GUARANTEE that the insurgency wouldn't then come back - and stronger - after we left?

The 'don't give them a timetable' argument is a red herring. And it is dangerous. It implies that - if we wait long enough - all the troubles go away. It implies that insurgents - knowing that we WILL leave eventually - aren't currently waiting for it.

It's self-delusion... and it is scary how popular it is.


Millions dead, our enemies in power of a large nation or a military that will take a few years to get back up to top shape? I'll take the prior.


You want millions dead?


He has been saying that for 3 1/2 years. Nothing changes.


This wasn't what Muqtada was saying... this is what more than a hundred thousand Iraq men of fighting age were saying - today. They are choosing him.


Unfortunately, the conflict in Iraq is much more complicated than life or death.


For you. Not for the people living or dying.


None of them were blogs and the things we are talking about happened pre-war so a source from 2002 or 2003 is perfectly acceptable. Yeah things that disagree with you would have to be biased right?


It isn't a matter of agreeing with me - did you read the source? You know Saddam came to power as a 'moderate' alternative to hardliners, right?

Your article seems to imply Saddam came to office as a monster, and proceeded to brutalise women. The truth is quite the contrary.


B/c of the context. During the rev war, the US was fighting for independence against an oppressor who wanted to maintain control over them. In OIF, insurgents are fighting to return a country to an oppressive, restrictive and brutal government.


I think you see what you want to see. I think the average person trying to kick coalition forces out is more worried about getting the Great Satan gone, than worrying about what comes next.


No, being submissive to someone else is easy.


Like - taking orders, for example?


I guess that that is just something that we are going to have to disagree on.


Really? You'd rather a corrupt party, than an angelic individual?


We are defending people who can't defend themselves. I don't know how you equate that to Nazis but w/e.


I'm not equating that. I said it was a bad war. You said I'm running away. I'm saying - we SHOULD run away from bad wars.

The other way is "I'm just following orders", and that ends up with babies on bayonets.


They are civilians under the most general definitions but they are also murderers and criminals. Would you suggest that the police not go after them b/c they are civilians?


That is all.


We didn't like it and neither did the Iraqi people. I personally feel that if you should do what you think is right as long as it is feasible that you will be successful. I think that we followed that in Iraq. It might not have gone to plan but that is why we need to still be there.


The Chinese government has allegedly killed more Falun Gong members, than there are people in the entire state of Israel. Many of 'us' don't like it - and I'm pretty sure they don't. That is why we need to 'be there'... but we aren't are we?

But the point I was making is - we didn't just kill Saddam - we dismantled the entire political machinery. We drove them all out of office. And we refused to let those who KNOW how the country runs... be involved. We had no rpetense we thought 'that was going to work'. The truth is, we didn't give a shit. There was NO forward planning for a peace in Iraq.


Intel estimates didn't get us into any messes. Bad intel period got us into messes.


Bad intel. But, all the intel now is good, right?


They are included in that figure.


That doesn't make sense. I refuse to believe every single person who might have a vested interest in driving out the US, or in capitalising on the quagmire we have made... is already there.

Because he is a single minded leader who believes only a true patriot could believe as he does, thus only the people who believe as he does are true Americans, the rest are commies, hippies, democrats, and freaks...

Let's explore it. The current Iraqi regime could turn around tomorrow and tell the US to leave.... what would happen?

I estimate a great deal of ear plugging in the higher circles of US administration, but no change.

Unless there was someone in the Iraqi regime with Jedi mind tricks, but that's a whole different story :p


What if the current regime in Iraq then invited decided on strict Sharia law?

Would we sit by and watch women enslaved and Kurds oppressed? Would we tolerate the genocide of Sunnis?

Going with the Jedi mind trick thing, assuming that the US shoved off, it'd be a perfect excuse to go back and build some more 'enduring' bases. And then using said base to threaten the rest of the neighborhood.

Not really. Guerrilla warfare demands that you must be able to fade into the environment while able to strike with a minimal of outlay at risk, making you too hard to completely kill and too expensive to keep fighting. In highly urbanized settings where local environment is too hard to blend into without the consent of the population, the only way to achieve this is by the support of the people, or by coercing them into it with an environment of fear.
Guerilla warfare demands a very survivable force. A force that uses primarily IED's can get by if they are extremely proficient and lose very few personnel while doing this. However if a force wants to be able to recruit they either need a very effective propaganda network or they need to pull off stunning victories. The insurgency has the effective propaganda and is now getting their victory in a different way. The sunni terrorists kill shiite civilians in stunning fashion and inspire radical sunnis to join the fight. The same is true for shiias against sunnis. However this only divides the country even deeper which means that if we leave a true civil war will ensue if we don't leave behind a perfectly capable IA and IP. However this tactic also presents an interesting problem for insurgent groups. They get the support in areas where their recruiting enemy is not. Then they must travel to those areas and commit attacks which is inherently more difficult. Eventually, in order to carry out successful attacks they will need to travel much more openly which will in turn hurt their survivability. It is then when their tactics will truly backfire on them and we will see, over time, the death of the insurgency.
The NVA had dense jungles and extensive bomb proof tunnel networks to hide the majority of their forces and operations. However, Iraq is somewhat lacking in jungles and digging tunnels is hard to hide. That means they have to blend into the local population.



Can you really argue that cowing the populace to hide a guerrilla force with violence is somehow worst than firebombing entire cities as part of a war?

When did we firebomb in OIF or OEF?

And Bush ultimately orders you to fight where and when at his pleasure. Everyone has their own reasons for fighting, but as a soldier, the ultimate, overarching reason that one fights is because his commander commands it.

And Bush is your commander, like it or not.
The reason that you are there is your commander. The reason that you fight is up to you. And I'm not a soldier:p
Or are you telling me that if Bush didn't command this, you would have gone all by yourself to Iraq?
No i wouldn't have, but i still don't have to fight for his reasons.

This is a wonderful thread and the person who started it should be commended. Also, there has been a divergence from my original intent. Can we get back to arguing why Bush think the majority support him when polls, elections, a white house bbq poll (kidding) all say he's wrong? The bottom line is this guy thinks that the US begins and ends with what "he" wants. Luckily he'll be gone soon but while we're here can we unravel his insanity?

I didn't look for graphs. I found the evidence in tabular form, which you seem to ignore for some reason. I guess you just like graphs...?
Graphs are pretty sweet so don't put 'em down. But seriously just copy and paste it.


I don't have to refute it. If the resistance stopped, and Iraq went quiet tonight, the last few soldiers were trained up - we'd have no legitimate argument for staying.
That would be a dream scenario. We could finish training IA and IP in a very short period of time, there would be very few desertions, the economy would go up and the insurgency would have an extremely difficult time coming back.


The 'don't give them a timetable' argument is a red herring. And it is dangerous. It implies that - if we wait long enough - all the troubles go away. It implies that insurgents - knowing that we WILL leave eventually - aren't currently waiting for it.
What you are assuming is that an insurgency can last forever. There is usually a tipping point where the civilian population goes against the insurgency and it is no longer tenable and when their source of recruits dries up. As long as we are there they can't win and they know it.
It's self-delusion... and it is scary how popular it is.




You want millions dead?
Sorry, typo. I obviously meant to say that i would want the latter.



This wasn't what Muqtada was saying... this is what more than a hundred thousand Iraq men of fighting age were saying - today. They are choosing him.
They chose him a long time ago.



For you. Not for the people living or dying.
It's even more complicated for them. They have to balance working, shopping for essentials, living a normal life and surviving.



It isn't a matter of agreeing with me - did you read the source? You know Saddam came to power as a 'moderate' alternative to hardliners, right?
He came in under the ploy of a moderate but you could hardly call him one when he was in power. You cannot deny the atrocities that he committed.
Your article seems to imply Saddam came to office as a monster, and proceeded to brutalise women. The truth is quite the contrary.
Well he was a hitman before that.


I think you see what you want to see. I think the average person trying to kick coalition forces out is more worried about getting the Great Satan gone, than worrying about what comes next.
The leadership knows exactly what it is doing. Maybe not the grunts but you better believe that Sadr wants Iraq when it's all said and done.


Like - taking orders, for example?
In order to defend freedoms you have to give up some of your own.


Really? You'd rather a corrupt party, than an angelic individual?
Yes actually. Because that corrupt party will be elected out of office. Change is necessary to prevent total corruption. As the proverb goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.


I'm not equating that. I said it was a bad war. You said I'm running away. I'm saying - we SHOULD run away from bad wars.
The war was run bad in the beginning. That doesn't make it a bad war.




That is all.
It is like you to deny the existence of murderers and criminals. Always supporting the perpetrator.


The Chinese government has allegedly killed more Falun Gong members, than there are people in the entire state of Israel. Many of 'us' don't like it - and I'm pretty sure they don't. That is why we need to 'be there'... but we aren't are we?
It would be great to be able to do that. However, China is too big of a country to occupy and the little part about nukes doesn't help either. We do what we can not what we can't.
But the point I was making is - we didn't just kill Saddam - we dismantled the entire political machinery. We drove them all out of office. And we refused to let those who KNOW how the country runs... be involved. We had no rpetense we thought 'that was going to work'. The truth is, we didn't give a shit. There was NO forward planning for a peace in Iraq.
And that was the most serious misstep. I don't know what you are trying to prove. We are now trying to correct that mistake by allowing low ranking officers back into the military and allowing lower ranking former baathists back into power if elected.


Bad intel. But, all the intel now is good, right?
Again with the black and white. I'm glad my mind is as simple as yours.



That doesn't make sense. I refuse to believe every single person who might have a vested interest in driving out the US, or in capitalising on the quagmire we have made... is already there.
It's something like 40-60 each month coming in from Syria.

Guerilla warfare demands a very survivable force. A force that uses primarily IED's can get by if they are extremely proficient and lose very few personnel while doing this. However if a force wants to be able to recruit they either need a very effective propaganda network or they need to pull off stunning victories. The insurgency has the effective propaganda and is now getting their victory in a different way. The sunni terrorists kill shiite civilians in stunning fashion and inspire radical sunnis to join the fight. The same is true for shiias against sunnis. However this only divides the country even deeper which means that if we leave a true civil war will ensue if we don't leave behind a perfectly capable IA and IP. However this tactic also presents an interesting problem for insurgent groups. They get the support in areas where their recruiting enemy is not. Then they must travel to those areas and commit attacks which is inherently more difficult. Eventually, in order to carry out successful attacks they will need to travel much more openly which will in turn hurt their survivability. It is then when their tactics will truly backfire on them and we will see, over time, the death of the insurgency.

That's somewhat optimistic I think. The greater the chaos and fighting that goes on in Iraq, the less effective authorities are at containing it. Yes, recruiting will be harder. Yes it may make travel a little more difficult for the insurgency since they have to watch out for other factions, but at the same time, with the hands of the IA and IP busy, not to mention the US occupation force, it is much easier to move about than if the ones with greater resources could fully focus on them.

By sowing dissension and chaos, they can diffuse the resources of their real opponents, saving men and material otherwise wasted. Note that the insurgency didn't really pick up until enough time had passed for local sentiment towards the US to really plummet? At this point of time, it is likely they already have a core component of trained and experienced personnel for key operations and only recruit for mules and other expendables.

The chaos helps their core personnel survive while the expendables can be drawn from the disaffected groups.


When did we firebomb in OIF or OEF?
[quote]

You don't have to anymore because you've got precision munitions. However, some of the targets of said bombings are a little suspect. Like news stations for one.

[QUOTE=USMC leathernecks2;12528610]
The reason that you are there is your commander. The reason that you fight is up to you. And I'm not a soldier:p

Actually the reason you are there is because you obeyed your commander. Otherwise, you end up in jail. Obedience may not be tacit agreement with their goals, but it does say that said goals are acceptable enough to do your job.


No i wouldn't have, but i still don't have to fight for his reasons.

To put it simply, it would be his reasons that are why you are where you are.

Cause it sounds stupid to say: I did .......... but the people don't agree with me.

Exactly.

That there is what I think everyone has been trying to say for the last spamillion posts.

Or I could be horribly, irreverseably wrong.

By people that haven't been there.
.That is what we are fighting for every day when we are there. Though we aren't fighting for the freedom of Americans we are fighting for the freedom of other worthy people.

The "you aren't here so you don't know" thing doesnt really fly when examining the intentions behind a Goverments actions.

This is what I call the "cuddly Iraqi" phenomena. For reasons unknown to many, the ordinary Iraqi became so cuddly and cute to some Parties in America that they couldnt help but "liberate" them. The average Burmese, Tibetan, North Korean or East Timorese have yet to develope these features, and wonder what about the Iraqi is so attractive that it needs freeing. These days they might also think that if this is what constitutes freedom, they might be better off staying as uncuddly as possible.


Unless I'm missing something big, those were orders given by the CPA which, along with it's orders, doesn't exist any more.

Well its good that you recognise you are missing something, because in fact you are. Those orders are still in effect.

Now, what do you think the point of those orders were/are? Do you think that (for example) an order that prevents seed holding is designed with the Iraqi people in mind? Do you find that orders that allow in Foreign business, prevent preference for Iraqi firms and allow full transfer of profits from the country as favouring any particular set of firms? Your thoughts please.

Well its good that you recognise you are missing something, because in fact you are. Those orders are still in effect.

Now, what do you think the point of those orders were/are? Do you think that (for example) an order that prevents seed holding is designed with the Iraqi people in mind? Do you find that orders that allow in Foreign business, prevent preference for Iraqi firms and allow full transfer of profits from the country as favouring any particular set of firms? Your thoughts please.
Can you cite anything saying that these are still in affect? I was under the impression that they were not but I've been wrong before. To me these order look like they were made under the impression that Iraq would be back to speed in a few short months and that we could use these methods to recoup some of our losses during the invasion. Just my analysis but there could be more sinister reason behind them.

That's somewhat optimistic I think. The greater the chaos and fighting that goes on in Iraq, the less effective authorities are at containing it.
On the contrary, when that chaos and fighting alienates the locals we tend to get a shit load of intel. The weeks when an insurgent force rolls into a new area is when we get the most and our best intel. This allows us to quickly eliminate leaders and target safe houses usually allowing us to quell a new area before it explodes.
Yes, recruiting will be harder. Yes it may make travel a little more difficult for the insurgency since they have to watch out for other factions, but at the same time, with the hands of the IA and IP busy, not to mention the US occupation force, it is much easier to move about than if the ones with greater resources could fully focus on them.
When we are busy we tend to be allocated much more air assets which allow us to deal with increased road and foot traffic. The indig factions that they will be fighting will also be able to stop traffic to a much more effective degree than us b/c of their personnel number adv.
By sowing dissension and chaos, they can diffuse the resources of their real opponents, saving men and material otherwise wasted.
However they need to use their men and material to sow that dissension. Unless they are constantly sending men to die the chaos will end. It is at these points that they use the most resources.
Note that the insurgency didn't really pick up until enough time had passed for local sentiment towards the US to really plummet?
Yes that is true and it makes perfect sense. The insurgents preyed on our inability to end the looting and the massive amount of new recruits after we disbanded saddams army.
At this point of time, it is likely they already have a core component of trained and experienced personnel for key operations and only recruit for mules and other expendables.
That is what it is starting to look like. Typically the iraqi insurgency reserves it's best for sniper and ambush roles. We are starting to see ambushes move from the mentality that they will die for allah to staying alive to fight for allah again. What this means is that their ambushes are less effective than they could be but they can keep their volume from falling.
The chaos helps their core personnel survive while the expendables can be drawn from the disaffected groups.


You don't have to anymore because you've got precision munitions. However, some of the targets of said bombings are a little suspect. Like news stations for one.
You have to understand that you don't get all of the info in unclassified media reports. Actual AAR's give a lot more info that justify attacks like that. Such as dissemination of orders using media outlets when commo lines are down.


Actually the reason you are there is because you obeyed your commander. Otherwise, you end up in jail. Obedience may not be tacit agreement with their goals, but it does say that said goals are acceptable enough to do your job.
Actually, at the time of my first deployment I renewed my committment 3 weeks prior. I certainly could have chosen not to go. I am also not in a position to argue those goals as political leadership > than military leadership.


To put it simply, it would be his reasons that are why you are where you are.
And I reject the conspiracy theory reasons and use my own.

On the contrary, when that chaos and fighting alienates the locals we tend to get a shit load of intel. The weeks when an insurgent force rolls into a new area is when we get the most and our best intel. This allows us to quickly eliminate leaders and target safe houses usually allowing us to quell a new area before it explodes.

Not all the chaos alienates the locals. Like I said, cooperation via coercion. You can't rely on alienated locals to get you the intel you need all the time now can you?

Besides, look at it this way. Would it have been easier to quell an insurgency with a pacified populace? The only way that'd work would be if the majority of the populace strongly resented their occupiers, Otherwise they'd show up like a sore thumb.

This way, they have better than even odds of getting through unscathed.


When we are busy we tend to be allocated much more air assets which allow us to deal with increased road and foot traffic. The indig factions that they will be fighting will also be able to stop traffic to a much more effective degree than us b/c of their personnel number adv.

I'd say that they lose far less men and material in factional chaos that keeps the US, IA and IP hands busy than if everything was ordered and stable.

Simple math. They can lose some people to relatively poorly trained and equipped factions and the occasional US sweep, or they can lose a lot more to dedicated US operations focusing solely on them.

Besides, some of those factions will also be attacking US assets, further tying them up and giving a free distraction to the insurgency.


However they need to use their men and material to sow that dissension. Unless they are constantly sending men to die the chaos will end. It is at these points that they use the most resources.

Expendables. I'm willing to bet that their core personnel are kept in reserve until after chaos explodes.


Yes that is true and it makes perfect sense. The insurgents preyed on our inability to end the looting and the massive amount of new recruits after we disbanded saddams army.

So much for "Mission Accomplished" eh?

Anyway, it backs up my assertion that this chaos is more beneficial to the insurgency than ordered stability. Added to the inflexibility of the decision makers higher up, they couldn't have asked for a better operating environment.


That is what it is starting to look like. Typically the iraqi insurgency reserves it's best for sniper and ambush roles. We are starting to see ambushes move from the mentality that they will die for allah to staying alive to fight for allah again. What this means is that their ambushes are less effective than they could be but they can keep their volume from falling.
The chaos helps their core personnel survive while the expendables can be drawn from the disaffected groups.


Precisely. And with expendables coming from disaffected groups, they don't lose anything more than a couple of bucks, a few guns and a belt of ammunition or explosives.

Furthermore, those expendables are the equivalent of cheap cruise missiles. Lots of bang for relatively little buck.


You have to understand that you don't get all of the info in unclassified media reports. Actual AAR's give a lot more info that justify attacks like that. Such as dissemination of orders using media outlets when commo lines are down.


Maybe, but the reverse also applies in info giving. Like the screwballs who decided that since they couldn't find the perp who attacked them, they'd slaughter the neighborhood and call it 'enemy action'

Or the scumbags who decided that it'd be fun to rape a girl and slaughter her family and put it down as combat.


Actually, at the time of my first deployment I renewed my committment 3 weeks prior. I certainly could have chosen not to go. I am also not in a position to argue those goals as political leadership > than military leadership.


Didn't you say you weren't a soldier? And no, don't give me that "I'm not a soldier, I'm a marine/medic/engineer/little green man" excuse. If you wear the uniform of an armed force, you're a soldier.

Besides, as a soldier, you're a tool of the government. That's what the entire armed force is supposed to be. A tool of the government. And whatever the government decides, short of illegal orders which get carried out anyway, the armed forces must comply.


And I reject the conspiracy theory reasons and use my own.

What conspiracy theory reasons? Bush is currently CIC, and if he decides that there's little green men in Antartica that needed fighting, he could probably ship off half the US army there if he wanted to thanks to that legislature that allows the president to deploy the army wherever and whenever he wants for 6 months without needing Congress to agree on it.

That's as bald a statement of fact as it can get.

Not all the chaos alienates the locals. Like I said, cooperation via coercion. You can't rely on alienated locals to get you the intel you need all the time now can you?
It is the best intel that you can get in terms of quantity. Can't go much into how you verify it but you can be sure that it is pretty good in quality also. And if you are being threatened by an insurgent force you are not going to like them. So when we provide security in that area they tend to jump ship rather quickly providing a base for when we have to leave.
Besides, look at it this way. Would it have been easier to quell an insurgency with a pacified populace? The only way that'd work would be if the majority of the populace strongly resented their occupiers, Otherwise they'd show up like a sore thumb. This way, they have better than even odds of getting through unscathed.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.


I'd say that they lose far less men and material in factional chaos that keeps the US, IA and IP hands busy than if everything was ordered and stable.
You said it yourself, an insurgency thrives on local support. If the insurgency willingly gives away half of it's support then it is going to be hurting.

Simple math. They can lose some people to relatively poorly trained and equipped factions and the occasional US sweep, or they can lose a lot more to dedicated US operations focusing solely on them.
This does make sense but you have to assume something that usually isn't true. The way that an insurgency fights locals is completely different than the way that it fights an occupier. An insurgency fights an occupier in a way that emphasizes survivability above all else. Two indig forces against each other tend to be much more bold and thus many more die.
Besides, some of those factions will also be attacking US assets, further tying them up and giving a free distraction to the insurgency.


Expendables. I'm willing to bet that their core personnel are kept in reserve until after chaos explodes.
To an extent. However, the way that they build their core personnel is through combat experience b/c there are no training camps. This means that they can't really just keep them in hiding or their proficiency will go down severely. Combat is an art forgotten w/o constant training and practice.


So much for "Mission Accomplished" eh?
The mission was accomplished. Now there is a new mission.
Anyway, it backs up my assertion that this chaos is more beneficial to the insurgency than ordered stability. Added to the inflexibility of the decision makers higher up, they couldn't have asked for a better operating environment.
They could have done w/o the best fighting force in the world. And by definition an insurgency thrives on chaos. It is the only thing that it can do. An insurgency just had to hope that it can survive the casualties it takes in this chaos longer than the will of the enemy nation can take it.


Precisely. And with expendables coming from disaffected groups, they don't lose anything more than a couple of bucks, a few guns and a belt of ammunition or explosives.
We can only hope that these so called expendables start to realize that they will ultimately die at the hands of their new comrades if not at ours.

Maybe, but the reverse also applies in info giving. Like the screwballs who decided that since they couldn't find the perp who attacked them, they'd slaughter the neighborhood and call it 'enemy action'
Or the scumbags who decided that it'd be fun to rape a girl and slaughter her family and put it down as combat.
Typically a higher up officer won't try to pull off that shit or anyone in the military for that matter but there are fuckbags in any organization.


Didn't you say you weren't a soldier? And no, don't give me that "I'm not a soldier, I'm a marine/medic/engineer/little green man" excuse. If you wear the uniform of an armed force, you're a soldier.
You are obviously a product of the modern media that doesn't know anything.


Besides, as a soldier, you're a tool of the government. That's what the entire armed force is supposed to be. A tool of the government. And whatever the government decides, short of illegal orders which get carried out anyway, the armed forces must comply.
Yes, the military is a tool of our gov't. And our gov't wouldn't have much to back up anything it says with out us.


What conspiracy theory reasons? Bush is currently CIC, and if he decides that there's little green men in Antartica that needed fighting, he could probably ship off half the US army there if he wanted to thanks to that legislature that allows the president to deploy the army wherever and whenever he wants for 6 months without needing Congress to agree on it.
If it hasn't been confirmed by anyone then it is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

It is the best intel that you can get in terms of quantity. Can't go much into how you verify it but you can be sure that it is pretty good in quality also. And if you are being threatened by an insurgent force you are not going to like them. So when we provide security in that area they tend to jump ship rather quickly providing a base for when we have to leave.

Assuming you provide security in said area before the the insurgent group strikes or moves on.


Not sure what you are trying to say here.

You said it yourself, an insurgency thrives on local support. If the insurgency willingly gives away half of it's support then it is going to be hurting.


Combined both statements because it has one answer.

If the occupiers have local support, insurgency suffers. If insurgency has local support, occupiers suffer. If support goes either ways, create fractional strife among areas where you are not supported while fortifying existing support bases. Try to make it look like someone else did it. Ideally the occupiers. Appear as 'saviors' and 'protectors' once fractional strife has reached a boiling point, gaining local support. Or go low in chaotic zones, avoiding detection as either faction tries to kill each other.

Complete local support is not possible for the insurgency. Thereby, create strife as a smoke screen.


This does make sense but you have to assume something that usually isn't true. The way that an insurgency fights locals is completely different than the way that it fights an occupier. An insurgency fights an occupier in a way that emphasizes survivability above all else. Two indig forces against each other tend to be much more bold and thus many more die.

Look at it this way. If there are two rival factions and an external insurgency group, the factions will more likely attack each other, diffusing assets even if they are more aggressive. If said factions aren't fighting each other, the US can solely focus on the insurgent group.

Additionally, with the US ability to call in airstrikes, moving units without cover is suicide. If there is factional fighting going on, which the US may simply try to contain than quell, movement becomes more easily obscured.


To an extent. However, the way that they build their core personnel is through combat experience b/c there are no training camps. This means that they can't really just keep them in hiding or their proficiency will go down severely. Combat is an art forgotten w/o constant training and practice.


So if the first batch of mules and expendables survive, they've either got luck or skill enough to make them worth training for the next op. Maybe attach one or two senior personnel as coordinators/sergeants. Minimum risk, maximum gain. And there's no limit to how many expendables they can recruit.


The mission was accomplished. Now there is a new mission.


I'd say it was only half done. Unless the idea was topple the regime and go home. If it was create a new Iraqi nation with all the bells and whistles they promised, it's definitely not accomplished.


They could have done w/o the best fighting force in the world. And by definition an insurgency thrives on chaos. It is the only thing that it can do. An insurgency just had to hope that it can survive the casualties it takes in this chaos longer than the will of the enemy nation can take it.


What of it? Superpowers have been beaten by guerrilla warfare before. A small, diffuse group that has the determination and skill to make completely exterminating them too hard while making the war too expensive to wage for the occupier.


We can only hope that these so called expendables start to realize that they will ultimately die at the hands of their new comrades if not at ours.


That depends. Die for a cause that promises the right to self rule or die as part of 'collateral damage'?

A lot of Americans seem to think that freedom and independence is a cause worth dying for. Hard to fault local Iraqis for thinking the same way. Like it or not, America is seen as an occupier.


Typically a higher up officer won't try to pull off that shit or anyone in the military for that matter but there are fuckbags in any organization.


How much higher? I seem to remember Lt.s being involved in some of the scandals, with links to even higher authorities. But being a higher authority has its advantages. Like quashing investigations against you.


You are obviously a product of the modern media that doesn't know anything.


Are you, or are you not a member of the armed services? Yes or no?


Yes, the military is a tool of our gov't. And our gov't wouldn't have much to back up anything it says with out us.


And the military obeys the government. Thereby, what the executor of the government wants, the military does no?


If it hasn't been confirmed by anyone then it is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

What exactly hasn't been confirmed? The legal presidential authority to wage for for 6 months without congressional approval? It's there in black and white if anyone wants. Heck, it's been a topic of NSG for a while.

It is the best intel that you can get in terms of quantity. Can't go much into how you verify it but you can be sure that it is pretty good in quality also. And if you are being threatened by an insurgent force you are not going to like them. So when we provide security in that area they tend to jump ship rather quickly providing a base for when we have to leave.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.



You said it yourself, an insurgency thrives on local support. If the insurgency willingly gives away half of it's support then it is going to be hurting.


This does make sense but you have to assume something that usually isn't true. The way that an insurgency fights locals is completely different than the way that it fights an occupier. An insurgency fights an occupier in a way that emphasizes survivability above all else. Two indig forces against each other tend to be much more bold and thus many more die.
Besides, some of those factions will also be attacking US assets, further tying them up and giving a free distraction to the insurgency.



To an extent. However, the way that they build their core personnel is through combat experience b/c there are no training camps. This means that they can't really just keep them in hiding or their proficiency will go down severely. Combat is an art forgotten w/o constant training and practice.



The mission was accomplished. Now there is a new mission.

They could have done w/o the best fighting force in the world. And by definition an insurgency thrives on chaos. It is the only thing that it can do. An insurgency just had to hope that it can survive the casualties it takes in this chaos longer than the will of the enemy nation can take it.



We can only hope that these so called expendables start to realize that they will ultimately die at the hands of their new comrades if not at ours.


Typically a higher up officer won't try to pull off that shit or anyone in the military for that matter but there are fuckbags in any organization.



You are obviously a product of the modern media that doesn't know anything.



Yes, the military is a tool of our gov't. And our gov't wouldn't have much to back up anything it says with out us.



If it hasn't been confirmed by anyone then it is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

Herro, Bush says he has support he DOES NOT have. Is he a liar or meglomaniac. BTW, all of the problems you speak of result from Bush's actions. He's the CinC and in charge of policy. The military is the tool by which that policy gets carried out right? The commanders on the ground are simply carrying out his policy correct? So who is at fault? Not the marines, the navy, fly boys, or grunts. It all comes back to one man and the idiots he lets work for him: rummy, feith, wolfowitz, etc. You remember feith, the guy the IG said led the manipulation of intelligence? You're right, we collect great intel for the commanders. But what good is it if a scum like feith can change it? The problem USMC2 is not your intelligence, it's the policy makers who misuse it. Impeachment would take too long. I'd rather a court martial being he is the CinC. Semper Fi good sir, from 1st Lou who has been in the same boat you have been in. Thank God we can speak freely on the internet without fear of reprisal from higher ups. Guard well my friend.

The problem with Bush and other political leaders in todays 'democracy' is that the idea of participatory democracy is ignored, and has become increasingly more elitist in nature. These politicians have taken their 'mandate' and the idea of 'were doing not what you want, but what's good for you' to the extreme. People need to remember that our government, our leaders or institution are not sovereign, we the people are sovereign. We have simply delegated our sovereignty to these representatives to act on our behalf. This has resulted in a massive alienation of the politicians to the people, which shouldn't at all happen. Bush is a good example in that he makes political appointment to areas of government responsibility only to those whose ideology they agree with, regardless of expertise. It's the idea that the politicians believe their ideas and opinions are somehow of more value than those of the people because they believe they are somehow more competent. Democracy is a myth.

Can you cite anything saying that these are still in affect? I was under the impression that they were not but I've been wrong before. To me these order look like they were made under the impression that Iraq would be back to speed in a few short months and that we could use these methods to recoup some of our losses during the invasion. Just my analysis but there could be more sinister reason behind them.


The Orders are exercised pursuant to the Iraqi interim constitution, the Transitional Administration Law (TAL). The Annex to the TAL states that the Orders can only be overturned with the approval of the President, the two Vice Presidents and a majority of the Ministers.

The Annex also denies the interim government the ability to take "any actions affecting Iraq's destiny beyond the limited interim period" which ends with the election of an Iraqi government "by 31 December 2005, but no later than January 2005." The identical sentence appears in UN Security Council Resolution 1546 which outlines Iraq's transition to "sovereignty." Thus, while Allawi may succeed in overturning a few less far-reaching Orders if for no other reason than to demonstrate his independence from the Americans, it is beyond his authority to change any fundamental laws.
http://www.ifg.org/analysis/globalization/IraqRedux.html


See also
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7639

As regards privatisation and Foriegn investment, should those laws be overturned, what do you think the chances are of Iraq renationalising an industry taken over by American corporations in the interim?

As a foreigner, and as an anti-Bush person, I don't like the man himself. But I will admit that in the past he did have more support, though dwindling...I suppose that he's saying that just to try (rather weakly however) sustaining his cause, and remind the world he still does have supporters in spite of his lowering public approval ratings.