NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think? Just a side note:

June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed so far

Source; page 18 (http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf)

Obviously not.

i suppose that might depend on how you define what you imagine it to be intended to do. regeme chainge by military intervention is brain surgery performed with a sledgehammer. as aboo j'mal explained from death row, it's all about political advantage. by that measure, it doesn't seem to be working for its authors either. although they do still seem to be a mafia that has usurped a country. but even that facade is beging to crack, or atleast show signs that it might.

about the only thing 'working' about it is that yet more humans continue being killed. in ever greater numbers. breeding yet more who would be willing to kill themselves and others, in ever more despirate attempts to deliver the message that they would simply like to stop being killed.

i really don't see how any of what is being done, can be expected to accomplish anything remotely resembling anything that has ever been claimed as a purpose for doing it. even the unclaimed mission, the one of oil greed and the even more unclaimed one of world dominance.

working? what is it intended to accomplish? saving the face of neo-conservatism? the pretence that corporatocracy actually bennifits ANYone? even itself?

how would one define it as working if it were? unless its only agenda IS to increase human missery. it does seem to have a real potential for accomplishing THAT.

=^^=
.../\...

What do you think? Just a side note:



Source; page 18 (http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf)

Can it really be called a surge anymore? Arn't surges sudden, and then gone withonly the aftermath to witness what happend?

Can it really be called a surge anymore? Arn't surges sudden, and then gone withonly the aftermath to witness what happend?

21k troops is hardly a surge anyway, more like a dribble.

Yes, in Baghdad, not really anwhere else.

Why is this even a question?

Of course it's not working. It never was going to work. It was an idea advanced by an administration that doesn't give two shits about actually winning the war or having real success.

People seem to think that the US government is trying to win something in Iraq. They're not. The folks in power could not care less about "winning" or "losing" the war. They make money when the government spends a million bucks on a thumb screw for rebuilding a chair that is supposed to replace one of the zillions of broken chairs in one of the many cities they've blown up. Whether or not that city was the site of a US military victory or not is irrelevant.

--snip USA deaths--

I don't quite care about the USA deaths, which pale in comparison to the Iraqi ones. No sympathy for the aggressors.

SBS's had a good documentary on the military side of the war on yesterday, and a decent segment on US soldiers and their morale at the moment.

The original idea that "surge" was based on was the "Clear, Hold, Build" strategy used by a local commander in Tal Afar. Basically US troops would engage insurgents and militias and drive them from a housing block. Then they would actually stay at that block and provide security to the people who live there to make sure that not everyone who supports the US finds themselves killed the following night. And while they're there they do the construction work to make the place viable for people to live in.

In Tal Afar it was a huge success, it was a stable and safe city to live in. For years the top general at the time was aware of this, but stuck to the idea of staying in the baracks and letting imaginary Iraqi forces deal with the problems.

So when this general, Casey, was replaced with Petraeus (who's a specialist on counter-insurgency warfare and wrote his PhD about the French in Vietnam), the new guy immediately got the commander from Tal Afar to be his advisor.

Meanwhile a bunch of smart guys used the "Clear, Hold, Build" model to develop the idea of the "surge" - add the troops needed to actually do the "hold" part for central Baghdad. Those suburbs are mixed and extremely dangerous. Being able to secure them would then serve as a model to keep going outwards.

But Bush didn't want to give up on the Iraqi government and military and instead of the recommended surge of 35,000+ approved much fewer troops. As I understand it, they're trying to do the "Clear, Hold, Build" thing but know they have little chance of success because they don't have enough troops to actually do it.

But I guess we won't know whether it worked until September some time, or so says Petraeus.

Assuming something as completely fucking disturbed as the US public can get fed up with seeing their friends and neighbours lying torn in bloody bits in a foreign country for no reason (and that's a pretty sketchy assumption), I'd say the surge thingy is working. In fact, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage you to surge some more. The more you do it, the more of you die horribly, and hopefully, the faster you'll give up on that fucked up military annexation of yours.

If my assumption is wrong, then the surge can't possibly be said to be working, and for the sake of humanity in general, I hope you abandon the genocide soon.

Fuck, if you have to kill hundreds of thousands of people, why don't you just poison your own water supplies?

Sounds like we don't need to help the Iraqi government anymore. Maliki is ready to go it alone, as he recently stated (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/syria_iraq_8;_ylt=AsYIyq5M.PNIkCO0tkQMKhoE1vAI) "...We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.

And we should let him -- After all, what good is he if he won't be our puppet?

SBS's had a good documentary on the military side of the war on yesterday, and a decent segment on US soldiers and their morale at the moment.

The original idea that "surge" was based on was the "Clear, Hold, Build" strategy used by a local commander in Tal Afar. Basically US troops would engage insurgents and militias and drive them from a housing block. Then they would actually stay at that block and provide security to the people who live there to make sure that not everyone who supports the US finds themselves killed the following night. And while they're there they do the construction work to make the place viable for people to live in.

In Tal Afar it was a huge success, it was a stable and safe city to live in. For years the top general at the time was aware of this, but stuck to the idea of staying in the baracks and letting imaginary Iraqi forces deal with the problems.

So when this general, Casey, was replaced with Petraeus (who's a specialist on counter-insurgency warfare and wrote his PhD about the French in Vietnam), the new guy immediately got the commander from Tal Afar to be his advisor.

Meanwhile a bunch of smart guys used the "Clear, Hold, Build" model to develop the idea of the "surge" - add the troops needed to actually do the "hold" part for central Baghdad. Those suburbs are mixed and extremely dangerous. Being able to secure them would then serve as a model to keep going outwards.

But Bush didn't want to give up on the Iraqi government and military and instead of the recommended surge of 35,000+ approved much fewer troops. As I understand it, they're trying to do the "Clear, Hold, Build" thing but know they have little chance of success because they don't have enough troops to actually do it.

But I guess we won't know whether it worked until September some time, or so says Petraeus.
Yeah I saw that, very interesting.

Assuming something as completely fucking disturbed as the US public can get fed up with seeing their friends and neighbours lying torn in bloody bits in a foreign country for no reason (and that's a pretty sketchy assumption), I'd say the surge thingy is working. In fact, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage you to surge some more. The more you do it, the more of you die horribly, and hopefully, the faster you'll give up on that fucked up military annexation of yours.

If my assumption is wrong, then the surge can't possibly be said to be working, and for the sake of humanity in general, I hope you abandon the genocide soon.

Fuck, if you have to kill hundreds of thousands of people, why don't you just poison your own water supplies?

This person sounds like an angry teenager who doesnt quite know how to handle his own emotions. Please look up the word genocide. Learn its proper meaning, then learn how to properly apply it. Thank you.

Not without Robocops it's not.

This person sounds like an angry teenager who doesnt quite know how to handle his own emotions. Please look up the word genocide. Learn its proper meaning, then learn how to properly apply it. Thank you.Alright, mister oh-so-adult-and-clever:

Merriam-Webster's
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'jen-&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

How could this apply to the US rape of Iraq? Well.. A number of different political factions are systematically hunted down and slaughtered. That, according to the dictionary, would be genocide.

But since I've got you on the school bench already, mister wise-old-adult, let me cite something a few fucking lightyears better than a dictionary, yeh?Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."Do you have even the remotest damn clue as to the death, destruction and displacement the US is responsible for in Iraq? Are you also aware the 12 years of US-led systematic terror bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and the Blood for Oil sanctions killed around the same number of people, primarily children and elderly? Are you, perhaps, also aware that policy has widely been dubbed a genocide, by everything from NGOs to sovereign nation states, to human rights and aid groups operating under the UN?

Mate, the only people on Earth with half a fucking clue who wouldn't classify US acts over the last 15 years as genocide, are Americans. And I'm hoping against hope it's because they're kept ignorant by the media and fed lies by their representatives. However implausible that sounds. Because I don't revel in bloody mayhem for it's own sake. But perhaps you do...

School's out, mister. Now for homework: teach yourself to make fewer assumptions. You can do it. I believe in you.

... OK, I don't. That'd be fucking naive. But just it a try, yeh?

But since I've got you on the school bench already, mister wise-old-adult, let me cite something a few fucking lightyears better than a dictionary, yeh?Do you have even the remotest damn clue as to the death, destruction and displacement the US is responsible for in Iraq? Are you also aware the 12 years of US-led systematic terror bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and the Blood for Oil sanctions killed around the same number of people, primarily children and elderly? Are you, perhaps, also aware that policy has widely been dubbed a genocide, by everything from NGOs to sovereign nation states, to human rights and aid groups operating under the UN?

Mate, the only people on Earth with half a fucking clue who wouldn't classify US acts over the last 15 years as genocide, are Americans. And I'm hoping against hope it's because they're kept ignorant by the media and fed lies by their representatives. However implausible that sounds. Because I don't revel in bloody mayhem for it's own sake. But perhaps you do...

School's out, mister. Now for homework: teach yourself to make fewer assumptions. You can do it. I believe in you.

... OK, I don't. That'd be fucking naive. But just it a try, yeh?

Wait... So we're the ones with the car bombs blowing up scores of innocent people? This is news to me.

Our representatives suck. In fact, a good number of them should be hung. There's no debating that. There's a good reasion why Bush is more of a regime than an administration.

However, calling it genocide is fucking bullshit.

Germany had Genocide, as did Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Kosovo. You could even include Russia to that list. There's also the 300,000 citizens of Madagascar who were killed by the French.

But the difference between them and us is that we're not intentianally rounding up people and gunning them down in the streets. We're not forcing people to dig their own graves and shoot them in the back of the head by the hundreds.

Sure there is collateral damage, but that is true with all wars. But the number has been greatly reduced with the use of smart bombs and precision guided missiles.

I think you're forgetting it's the terrorists that are killing innocent people and not the US soldiers.

Don't bother to give me links of "US Soldiers kill innocent people" because I know about them. I know it happens because Guerilla wars have god fucking awful affects on everyone that make them do shit they would never ever do otherwise in a normal circumstance or a more straitforward war.

The point I'm making is that the situation in Iraq sucks. The US government sucks. The way the war is being handled sucks. But we are in no way, committing an act of genocide.

Merriam-Webster's
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'jen-&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

How could this apply to the US rape of Iraq? Well.. A number of different political factions are systematically hunted down and slaughtered. That, according to the dictionary, would be genocide.

In no way is the US guilty of any of this. The US isnt hunting down any racial, cultural nor political group. What they are doing is hunting down armed people that are declared enemies of the duely elected government of Iraq. This isnt genocide, its the natural right of a State to defend itself against terrorist attacks. Do the innocent get involved in colateral? certainly. Does the US ocassionally make mistakes in thier targets? Certianly. Genocide? Of course not.

But since I've got you on the school bench already, mister wise-old-adult, let me cite something a few fucking lightyears better than a dictionary, yeh?Do you have even the remotest damn clue as to the death, destruction and displacement the US is responsible for in Iraq? Are you also aware the 12 years of US-led systematic terror bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and the Blood for Oil sanctions killed around the same number of people, primarily children and elderly? Are you, perhaps, also aware that policy has widely been dubbed a genocide, by everything from NGOs to sovereign nation states, to human rights and aid groups operating under the UN

US systematic terror bombing of Iraqi infastructure? WHAT? Ok go to any dealsalinization plant, or electrical generator plant or dam or municipal sewer system or gas and oil pipelines or bridges or ANY other part of what could be considered infrastructure of Iraq in any way and you take a peek to see who is guarding what part of the Iraqi infrastructure from whom. Who is spending tens of billions to try to rebuild a system that Sadaam left to rot for decades? Give me a break.

In no way is the US guilty of any of this. The US isnt hunting down any racial, cultural nor political group. What they are doing is hunting down armed people that are declared enemies of the duely elected government of Iraq.

That sounds like a political group to me.

Wait... So we're the ones with the car bombs blowing up scores of innocent people? This is news to me.Nah, you lot use cruise missiles. But yes. You do it too. It's just called collateral when you're going about your mass-murdering.Our representatives suck. In fact, a good number of them should be hung.I''d suggest life in a KZ camp would be more fitting. It's both payback and avoiding the same arrogant, senseless slaughter that is the trademark of US administrations post WWII.However, calling it genocide is fucking bullshit. No it absolutely isn't. That you think genocide is only genocide when the extermination of large parts of an entire peoples is conducted for the sole purpose of killing said people, is bullshit.

When you butcher your way through 5% of a multi-million population group, it doesn't matter why. It's genocide. And the irony is the US itself defined it as such. So take it up with your dearly departed leaders, if being party to genocide ruffles your feathers (but mass-slaughter itself for some reason doesn't). You're the one trying to redefine what a genocide is. Not I. Although I fail to see why it matters what your actions are called.Sure there is collateral damage, but that is true with all wars.The strategic value of a target has to be greater than any possible collateral damage. If that is not the case, the military action is a war crime, and/or a crime against humanity.

Quite obviously facilitating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, cannot be justified when the target posed no credible threat to the US (or anyone else for that matter). Then again, invading a sovereign nation for no fucking reason at all, is illegal in itself. Mostly because the allied nations, America amongst them, defined it as such in the aftermath of WWII. Fucking hypocrites.But the number has been greatly reduced with the use of smart bombs and precision guided missiles.Do you think 500,000 dead people give a damn whether they got blown to bloody gristle by a smartbomb or by one of the warring factions the US created? Do you think anyone but Americans (and possibly a few Brits) trying to sleep at night, gives a shit?I think you're forgetting it's the terrorists that are killing innocent people and not the US soldiers.I think you're forgetting you not only let 'em, you made 'em. But lets try an analogy: Who do you blame? The guy who got defenestrated, fell 50 floors, crashed thru the roof of a florist and wrecked the shop? Or the guy who threw him out the window?I know it happens because Guerilla wars have god fucking awful affects on everyone that make them do shit they would never ever do otherwise in a normal circumstance or a more straitforward war.People become desensitised and alienated in war. Makes them think of anyone outside their own group as dumb animals, and treat them accordingly - even mistreat them for sport. Happens in all wars. Always has.

But then, nobody asked you to spend more than 15 years systematically destroying a country and it's population. You're doing it because you feel like it. Nothing more.The point I'm making is that the situation in Iraq sucks. The US government sucks. The way the war is being handled sucks. But we are in no way, committing an act of genocide.Guess we better re-write those dictionaries. Sort of like your government did with it's military's definition of terrorism, yeh? - All so it wouldn't look like a terrorist state...

Look, I don't give a shit if you call it a pink tutu. My point is you're committing mass murder on a scale to vast to even begin to fathom. If there's such a thing as evil, what you're doing right now is it. If you think anyone with an ounce of sense in their skulls will somehow perceive you differently because you call or don't call this obscene atrocity 'genocide', you're sorely mistaken.

This is eerily like two people arguing over whether one of them is slaughtering some random person like a pig or a dog. Makes no fucking difference. That you actually want to argue this 'point' makes me doubt your grip on reality.

A much better 'point' would be trying to explain why the fuck you feel you have to slaughter so many people. I mean, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it looks like you're trying to fit your bastardised definition of genocide. All the sanctions accomplished was to strengthen Saddam's regime and kill a hell of a lot of random citizens. All the terror bombings accomplished was to kill a hell of a lot of random citizens. The most significant thing your current invasion has done, is to kill a hell of a lot of random people.

Yea, I know you're not killing hundreds of thousands for the sheer joy of killing. But mate.. Why the hell are you doing it? Do you even know?

Nah, you lot use cruise missiles. But yes. You do it too. It's just called collateral when you're going about your mass-murdering.I''d suggest life in a KZ camp would be more fitting. It's both payback and avoiding the same arrogant, senseless slaughter that is the trademark of US administrations post WWII.No it absolutely isn't. That you think genocide is only genocide when the extermination of large parts of an entire peoples is conducted for the sole purpose of killing said people, is bullshit.

When you butcher your way through 5% of a multi-million population group, it doesn't matter why. It's genocide. And the irony is the US itself defined it as such. So take it up with your dearly departed leaders, if being party to genocide ruffles your feathers (but mass-slaughter itself for some reason doesn't). You're the one trying to redefine what a genocide is. Not I. Although I fail to see why it matters what your actions are called.The strategic value of a target has to be greater than any possible collateral damage. If that is not the case, the military action is a war crime, and/or a crime against humanity.

Quite obviously facilitating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands, cannot be justified when the target posed no credible threat to the US (or anyone else for that matter). Then again, invading a sovereign nation for no fucking reason at all, is illegal in itself. Mostly because the allied nations, America amongst them, defined it as such in the aftermath of WWII. Fucking hypocrites.Do you think 500,000 dead people give a damn whether they got blown to bloody gristle by a smartbomb or by one of the warring factions the US created? Do you think anyone but Americans (and possibly a few Brits) trying to sleep at night, gives a shit?I think you're forgetting you not only let 'em, you made 'em. But lets try an analogy: Who do you blame? The guy who got defenestrated, fell 50 floors, crashed thru the roof of a florist and wrecked the shop? Or the guy who threw him out the window?People become desensitised and alienated in war. Makes them think of anyone outside their own group as dumb animals, and treat them accordingly - even mistreat them for sport. Happens in all wars. Always has.

But then, nobody asked you to spend more than 15 years systematically destroying a country and it's population. You're doing it because you feel like it. Nothing more.Guess we better re-write those dictionaries. Sort of like your government did with it's military's definition of terrorism, yeh? - All so it wouldn't look like a terrorist state...

Look, I don't give a shit if you call it a pink tutu. My point is you're committing mass murder on a scale to vast to even begin to fathom. If there's such a thing as evil, what you're doing right now is it. If you think anyone with an ounce of sense in their skulls will somehow perceive you differently because you call or don't call this obscene atrocity 'genocide', you're sorely mistaken.

This is eerily like two people arguing over whether one of them is slaughtering some random person like a pig or a dog. Makes no fucking difference. That you actually want to argue this 'point' makes me doubt your grip on reality.

A much better 'point' would be trying to explain why the fuck you feel you have to slaughter so many people. I mean, if I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd say it looks like you're trying to fit your bastardised definition of genocide. All the sanctions accomplished was to strengthen Saddam's regime and kill a hell of a lot of random citizens. All the terror bombings accomplished was to kill a hell of a lot of random citizens. The most significant thing your current invasion has done, is to kill a hell of a lot of random people.

Yea, I know you're not killing hundreds of thousands for the sheer joy of killing. But mate.. Why the hell are you doing it? Do you even know?

Well blimey, you've put so many words in my mouth and assumed so many wrong things that I don't even know where to begin.

You raise many good points, but they're outweighed by a good amount of bullshit you've included.

Nope. The iraqis must have a surge protector.

http://www.tbnsat.com/mmatv/Images/AC%20SURGE%20STRIP.JPG

"Defends against all surges!"

No.

What do you think? Just a side note:



Source; page 18 (http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf)

Yes the surge is working. Even a few Democrats in Congress are acknowledging that the surge is working. Dems saying it is starting to work? YIKES!!!!

*waits for the 2008 change over BACK to the Republicans*

That sounds like a political group to me.

Not nessesarily. That group could accuratly contain people who are members of Al Queda, Iranians, Shites, Sunnis Kurds and god knows what other micro divisions. None of them nessesarily share a common political view. So no, the US isnt targeting a genocide of a particular political group, just people that want to blow stuff up that is owned by all the Iraqi people.

EDIT: And to take your agruement to the extreme, with that as your definition, to say that targeting a different group with a different political view would consititute genocide would include almost every conflict ever in history of mankind. Including every ancient Indian tribe that had a different political view then thier neighbor and staged a raid, right up to every current World War , Korea, Vietnam, French Indo conflict, Russian occupation of Afghanistan, Serb Bosnia conflict etc to pretty much every major fight in the history of mankind large or small would be classidfied as genocide. We know this isnt true so the application of that logic is in some way faulty.

Not nessesarily. That group could accuratly contain people who are members of Al Queda, Iranians, Shites, Sunnis Kurds and god knows what other micro divisions. None of them nessesarily share a common political view. So no, the US isnt targeting a genocide of a particular political group, just people that want to blow stuff up that is owned by all the Iraqi people.

We do have to find some way to stop the Fucking Iranian Government from shipping arms to those damn terrorists.

US systematic terror bombing of Iraqi infastructure? WHAT? Ok go to any dealsalinization plant, or electrical generator plant or dam or municipal sewer system or gas and oil pipelines or bridges or ANY other part of what could be considered infrastructure of Iraq in any way and you take a peek to see who is guarding what.. was spared by the shock-an-awe

-bold- fixed for clarity.. . ;)

We do have to find some way to stop the Fucking Iranian Government from shipping arms to those damn terrorists.one_mans_terrorist_is_another_mans_freedom_fighter

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/40/113071843_6850ecc34b.jpg

Yes the surge is working. Even a few Democrats in Congress are acknowledging that the surge is working. Dems saying it is starting to work? YIKES!!!!

*waits for the 2008 change over BACK to the Republicans*

Weren't you posting under another identity, troll? Go back to him, please, he was occasionally agreeable.

And the surge isn't working at all.

We do have to find some way to stop the Fucking Iranian Government from shipping arms to those damn terrorists.

Iran's doing nothing the US hasn't done in the past.

Merely taking care of national security.

Weren't you posting under another identity, troll?

Nope.

And the surge isn't working at all.

According to the Washington POst on the 8th of AUgust:

These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.

The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush's strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush's policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.

Some dems are finally waking up and seeing that the surge is actually working. Now if we just pump in more troops...

Oh and on another note, General Petraues (sp?) is looking a troop draw down plan. Now why would he do that if the surge is NOT working? Oh yea...he would not do that.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to think its working. If you dont believe me look it up, let them speak for themselves.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to think its working. If you dont believe me look it up, let them speak for themselves.

And not just them either. Boy I can not wait for next month's report. The Democrats are going to see just how wrong they really are. If they are as wrong as I think they are, many of them will not be returning to the US Congress come next november.

According to the Washington POst on the 8th of AUgust:

And? The WaPo is not a reliable source.

Dems are finally waking up and seeing that the surge is actually working. Now if we just pump in more troops...

Oh and on another note, General Petraues (sp?) is looking a troop draw down plan. Now why would he do that if the surge is NOT working? Oh yea...he would not do that.

Or, you know, it's all bullshit speculation fuled by empty White House faux-"Leaks".

And? The WaPo is not a reliable source.

The Washington Post is not a reliable source? OMFG! You're nuts.

The Washington Post is not a reliable source? OMFG! You're nuts.

I think he means that in this case, the reliable source would be Petraeus himself.

I think he means that in this case, the reliable source would be Petraeus himself.

And even he is saying that it is working. Democratic members in congress are saying it is working. The post is reporting (from the congress people's words) is working. Yea...not reliable my ass when they are reporting what people are saying.

The Washington Post is not a reliable source? OMFG! You're nuts.

The WaPo is traditional Media, and enforces it's right-wing bias by twisting the subject. They were wrong about WMD too, you know.

Corny, deaths are up, the Iraqi Parliament is broken, attacks are up, and even where we've made progress, we're losing ground. Maliki is fucking threatening to go to Syria.

The WaPo is traditional Media, and enforces it's right-wing bias by twisting the subject. They were wrong about WMD too, you know.

The post leans right? News to me. Are you sure you are not thinking of the Washington Times?

As to the WMDs, they report what is being said by politicians. As any news source does :rolleyes:

The WaPo is traditional Media, and enforces it's right-wing bias by twisting the subject. They were wrong about WMD too, you know.

I'm pretty sure everyone was wrong about the WMDs. :rolleyes:

And even he is saying that it is working. Democratic members in congress are saying it is working. The post is reporting (from the congress people's words) is working. Yea...not reliable my ass when they are reporting what people are saying.

A: Wait for the report.
B: How do you know they haven't shifted to goalposts and redefined what 'working' and 'a success' means?
C: Democratic members of Congress can say what they like. Because they belong to the other side of the American political spectrum, does not make them the be all and end all on what is right.
D: The WP is reporting opinions on what the report may indicate, is it not?

I'm pretty sure everyone was wrong about the WMDs. :rolleyes:

Well, the MSM most certainly was, weren't they? Yet, Knight-Ridder, a nationally syndicated Washington DC based distributor knew otherwise before the war, and was saying so.

A: Wait for the report.

I am. From all I am hearing though, it is going to contain some good news.

B: How do you know they haven't shifted to goalposts and redefined what 'working' and 'a success' means?

Good question. I don't.

C: Democratic members of Congress can say what they like. Because they belong to the other side of the American political spectrum, does not make them the be all and end all on what is right.

ACtually, they are across the political spectrum just like republicans are all across the politically spectrum as well. What you mean is that they are in opposition to the President.

D: The WP is reporting opinions on what the report may indicate, is it not?

They just report what politicians are saying. So I guess one can say they are reporting the statements from politicians who said that the surge is working.

The US spectrum has two sides: Republican and Democrat. When one side says white, the other says black.

Those are parties. There is a difference

Exactly, they are reporting on politicians opinions. The politicians aren't compiling the report - the military are. It's speculation at the moment.

ok I will agree.

Actually, they are across the political spectrum just like republicans are all across the politically spectrum as well. What you mean is that they are in opposition to the President.
The US spectrum has two sides: Republican and Democrat. When one side says white, the other says black.


They just report what politicians are saying. So I guess one can say they are reporting the statements from politicians who said that the surge is working.
Exactly, they are reporting on politicians opinions. The politicians aren't compiling the report - the military are. It's speculation at the moment.

We do have to find some way to stop the Fucking Iranian Government from shipping arms to those damn terrorists.


Yes, once you show them how beneficial it will to have a fully rested uncommitted US force on their door-step, I'd imagine they'll cancel the orders and refund the CC before you can say "war by proxy".

Wait... So we're the ones with the car bombs blowing up scores of innocent people? This is news to me.
Nope, we're the ones dropping so-called 'smart' bombs that blow up scores of innocent people.

But the difference between them and us is that we're not intentionally rounding up people and gunning them down in the streets. We're not forcing people to dig their own graves and shoot them in the back of the head by the hundreds.
Well, not where the press can see us, anyway. <_< >_>

Sure there is collateral damage, but that is true with all wars. But the number has been greatly reduced with the use of smart bombs and precision guided missiles.

There is no greater bullshit. Unless of course you're comparing them to nukes.

I think you're forgetting it's the terrorists that are killing innocent people as well as the US soldiers.

Corrected.

Nope.



According to the Washington POst on the 8th of AUgust:



Some dems are finally waking up and seeing that the surge is actually working. Now if we just pump in more troops...

Oh and on another note, General Petraues (sp?) is looking a troop draw down plan. Now why would he do that if the surge is NOT working? Oh yea...he would not do that.



Are you looking to go then? We need MORE troops over there. So I want to see your boots all shiny and laced up first thing, and I want your ass over there fighting the war.

Not nessesarily. That group could accuratly contain people who are members of Al Queda, Iranians, Shites, Sunnis Kurds and god knows what other micro divisions. None of them nessesarily share a common political view.

The common political view is the one that allows you to label them all in the same category. Opposition to the US and to the US puppet government in Iraq.

That is all that is required for it to be a political group.

Furthermore, as "terrorists" the goal doesn't seem to be anything other than annihilating them; the concept of winning by reducing your enemies numbers to zero. That is different from ordinary civilized warfare.


EDIT: And to take your agruement to the extreme, with that as your definition

Actually, that would be your definition. I just went with it.

to say that targeting a different group with a different political view would consititute genocide

No. The "deliberate and systematic destruction" of that group.

would include almost every conflict ever in history of mankind. Including every ancient Indian tribe that had a different political view then thier neighbor and staged a raid

No, because raiding warfare does not seek to eliminate those raided.

every current World War

Well, to the Nazis, genocide sure seemed to be their methodology, no?

But the rest of us weren't out to kill all Germans, were we?

Korea, Vietnam, French Indo conflict, Russian occupation of Afghanistan, Serb Bosnia conflict etc to pretty much every major fight in the history of mankind large or small would be classidfied as genocide.

No, again, you left out the key part of your own definition I mentioned above.

We know this isnt true so the application of that logic is in some way faulty.

The fault is in your mis-interpretation of the definition such that if the US is doing it, it isn't genocide. ;)

Furthermore, as "terrorists" the goal doesn't seem to be anything other than annihilating them; the concept of winning by reducing your enemies numbers to zero. That is different from ordinary civilized warfare.
Well, the problem the US has in Iraq is partly due to the fact that they never planned to actually win anything militarily. It's a carry-over from Rumsfeld's "our presence won't be needed" thing. US Forces were meant to enable an Iraqi military and police to be trained, and they'd do the winning.

Hence why the US troops hardly ever went on the offensive (excepting Falujah maybe), but instead stayed in the baracks and went for the occasional patrol. The Surge is meant to be a change of tactic, but they don't have enough troops to pull it off.

There is no greater bullshit. Unless of course you're comparing them to nukes.

You're simply lying to yourself.

And even he is saying that it is working. Democratic members in congress are saying it is working. The post is reporting (from the congress people's words) is working. Yea...not reliable my ass when they are reporting what people are saying.

You believe politicians when it comes to reports on jingoistic material...I'm sure that's some cold comfort to the Iraqis who keep getting bombed and shot at. And working to do...what? Bring more stability? Nope. Deaths for civilians and soldiers are up. Enforce law? Laughable when even their own criminals are let go with nothing but a wrist slap. They don't enforce law. Period.

Increase the misery of Iraqi people? That seems to work in spades.

As a 101st keyboarder though, what with your constant "war is always justified" and then never signing up using numerous discredited reasons, you've already gained the trait "damned liar and hypocrite"

Nope. The iraqis must have a surge protector.

http://www.tbnsat.com/mmatv/Images/AC%20SURGE%20STRIP.JPG

"Defends against all surges!"
Annnnnddd the winner of this thread is Zilam!! :)

No it ain't and it was never going to.

No it ain't and it was never going to.

Well if the fact finding mission (by dems and even they say it is showing progress) says it is...

I believe it is working and when the report comes out next month, we will see just how much it is working.

Well if the fact finding mission (by dems and even they say it is showing progress) says it is...

I believe it is working and when the report comes out next month, we will see just how much it is working.

I'll hold you to that Corny.

But of course we all know what it will say. There has been a 1% improvement and look, it's working..... Doh!

Far too little, far too late, in a situation that didn't need to happen in the first place.

I'll hold you to that Corny.

But of course we all know what it will say. There has been a 1% improvement and look, it's working..... Doh!

Far too little, far too late, in a situation that didn't need to happen in the first place.

Judging by some of the statements I have been hearing...it is more than 1%.

Judging by some of the statements I have been hearing...it is more than 1%.

Like I said, too little tto late, in a situation created on the back of a lie.

We do have to find some way to stop the Fucking Iranian Government from shipping arms to those damn terrorists.

Weren't you posting under another identity, troll? Go back to him, please, he was occasionally agreeable.
Yeah, that would be Lancaster County!! :D

Some dems are finally waking up and seeing that the surge is actually working. Now if we just pump in more troops...

LOL! Dems saying the surge is working, well then it must be true. I find it hilarious that you use this as proof, when if it was the opposite of this situation and they were Republicans saying it wasn't working you'd ignore them.

I don't think the surge is working, its just making the war worse.

LOL! Dems saying the surge is working, well then it must be true. I find it hilarious that you use this as proof, when if it was the opposite of this situation and they were Republicans saying it wasn't working you'd ignore them.

I did? Care to point out where I ignored them? I said they were wrong and those who have been to Iraq have come back and stated that the surge is working. Only fools who have not gone over there are saying it is not working whereas those who have are saying the opposite. I will believe those who actually have first hand knowledge who are saying that the surge is working and when the report comes out next month, we will see just how well it is working.

I suppose running around chanting "No Blood for Oil" wouldn't help?

Why in hell are we in Iraq anyway? Weren't we supposed to go after Osama? Since when does Saddam sound like Osama?

I will believe those who actually have first hand knowledge who are saying that the surge is working and when the report comes out next month, we will see just how well it is working.
A quick question: How do you define "working"?

Also, I'd recommend everyone with a few spare minutes go here: http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/ and click on "Watch Iraq's Death Valley"

Exactly, they are reporting on politicians opinions. The politicians aren't compiling the report - the military are. It's speculation at the moment.

Errr.... no. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=2&coll=la-home-center)


...
Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.
...


Yes, GW has often said how his position would be governed on the outcome of this report. Of course, getting to WRITE the report makes it pretty easy to make sure that there is nothing in there to disagree with his position....

The problem is "too little, too late". If Colin Powell's idea of throw everything in at the beginning would have been followed it might have worked. The problem is now, the locals are against the force and the force is out of manpower.

You can't win when the people that live there are against you. You can't surge when you are out of boots.

The problem is "too little, too late". If Colin Powell's idea of throw everything in at the beginning would have been followed it might have worked. The problem is now, the locals are against the force and the force is out of manpower.

You can't win when the people that live there are against you. You can't surge when you are out of boots.
That brings up an interesting thought... Will the Democratic majority in Congress, aided by a Democratic President in 2009, bring back the draft?

That brings up an interesting thought... Will the Democratic majority in Congress, aided by a Democratic President in 2009, bring back the draft and commit political suicide?

Fixed, I think you'll agree

I suppose running around chanting "No Blood for Oil" wouldn't help?

Why in hell are we in Iraq anyway? Weren't we supposed to go after Osama? Since when does Saddam sound like Osama?

Barack Hussein Obama?

....

Meh. Whatever.

Petty American tit-for-tat politics don't concern me anyway. Report this, report that - all you have to do is open your eyes to see it won't and can't "work".

Is the surge working?

Nope... I gots a Surge Protector.

That brings up an interesting thought... Will the Democratic majority in Congress, aided by a Democratic President in 2009, bring back the draft?

No, because for once, the spineless little shits in the Blue Dogs won't have Rethuglican masters to cowtow to.

Alright, mister oh-so-adult-and-clever:

Merriam-Webster's
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'jen-&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

How could this apply to the US rape of Iraq? Well.. A number of different political factions are systematically hunted down and slaughtered. That, according to the dictionary, would be genocide.

But since I've got you on the school bench already, mister wise-old-adult, let me cite something a few fucking lightyears better than a dictionary, yeh?Do you have even the remotest damn clue as to the death, destruction and displacement the US is responsible for in Iraq? Are you also aware the 12 years of US-led systematic terror bombing of Iraqi infrastructure and the Blood for Oil sanctions killed around the same number of people, primarily children and elderly? Are you, perhaps, also aware that policy has widely been dubbed a genocide, by everything from NGOs to sovereign nation states, to human rights and aid groups operating under the UN?

Mate, the only people on Earth with half a fucking clue who wouldn't classify US acts over the last 15 years as genocide, are Americans. And I'm hoping against hope it's because they're kept ignorant by the media and fed lies by their representatives. However implausible that sounds. Because I don't revel in bloody mayhem for it's own sake. But perhaps you do...

School's out, mister. Now for homework: teach yourself to make fewer assumptions. You can do it. I believe in you.

... OK, I don't. That'd be fucking naive. But just it a try, yeh?

Implicit in the concept of genocide is the concept that the death and destruction is being carried out for the specific aim of destroying an ethnic group. While there have been major problems in Iraq, partially originating from the policies of various western and non-western states, since the Iran-Iraq War, the goal of these policies has not been the elimination of the Iraqi people. Instead they seem to be a combination of strange regional geopolitics, incompetence and the elevation of ideology over reality, there is simply no evidence that there is a concerted campaign to wipe out the Iraqi people on anyones part. Tragedy, yes, genocide absolutely not.

one_mans_terrorist_is_another_mans_freedom_fighter

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/40/113071843_6850ecc34b.jpg

That assumes moral equivalence, something which is not easily assumed.

It's making the republicans even less popular than before... so yes, there's a silver lining.

Working for whom?

Working for whom?

The letter Q.

Fixed, I think you'll agree

Not sure. The Democrats have been the ones calling for a new draft, not the Republicans. Plus, it seems most of the Presidential candidates have signed on to the idea that we will occupy Iraq for a while.

I hope that a majority will realize the reasons to abandon compulsory service are the same now as they once were, but you know about history and lessons learned.

Not sure. The Democrats have been the ones calling for a new draft, not the Republicans. Plus, it seems most of the Presidential candidates have signed on to the idea that we will occupy Iraq for a while.

I hope that a majority will realize the reasons to abandon compulsory service are the same now as they once were, but you know about history and lessons learned.

I've seen one whole Democrat actually support that shit-for-brains Idea, and then it Charlie Rangel, who only supports it because he thinks that there's some nascent classism to the existing system.

Moreover, the three leading Dems all would start a withdrawal from Iraq on their first day of office, but all three acknowledge that withdrawals don't happen overnight.

I don't know what Drudge is feeding the righties this week, but it clearly isn't conducive to a good sense of reality...

No, because for once, the spineless little shits in the Blue Dogs won't have Rethuglican masters to cowtow to.

and if they want to end the war, filibuster in Senate

It's making the republicans even less popular than before... so yes, there's a silver lining.

HA! And a Democratic Congress, elected more on corruption than Iraq, is losing support because they want us to lose. WHen report comes out, Republicans will sweep House, Senate, and the PResidency.

Wait... So we're the ones with the car bombs blowing up scores of innocent people? This is news to me.

Our representatives suck. In fact, a good number of them should be hung. There's no debating that. There's a good reasion why Bush is more of a regime than an administration.

However, calling it genocide is fucking bullshit.

Germany had Genocide, as did Cambodia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Kosovo. You could even include Russia to that list. There's also the 300,000 citizens of Madagascar who were killed by the French.


I didn't know that, was that done by the Republic or Vichy France?

Not sure. The Democrats have been the ones calling for a new draft, not the Republicans. Plus, it seems most of the Presidential candidates have signed on to the idea that we will occupy Iraq for a while.

SOmething that the REpublicans have been saying for a bit along with the military. Gee. ABout time the Dems woke up to that fact.

I hope that a majority will realize the reasons to abandon compulsory service are the same now as they once were, but you know about history and lessons learned.

I do but do they? Hopefully there will not be a Democrat majority much longer nor a Democratic President and if there is, the republicans will hopefully filibuster it.

HA! And a Democratic Congress, elected more on corruption than Iraq, is losing support because they want us to lose. WHen report comes out, Republicans will sweep House, Senate, and the PResidency.
The Democrats want the US to lose? Give your head a shake boy!!

And your previous prediction (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11409182&postcount=6)in 2006:

The Republicans will maintain the House and Senate.
How much money did you lose on that bet?

I didn't know that, was that done by the Republic or Vichy France?
Not sure whether it was 300,000, but no, not Vichy. Shortly after WWII, meaning the 4th Republic and Auriol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Auriol) as President.

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=fr_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.afrik.com%2farticle8073.html