![]() |
Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says
hxxp://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/0c265113d4815a607514f53b36f3f5cc.htm
Quote:
|
Civil War?
hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/in...ted=all∨ ef=login Quote:
|
hxxp://www.almendhar.com/almendharen/details.aspx?nID=4050
Quote:
|
Quote:
Point? |
hxxpp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/23/iraq/main703744.shtml
Quote:
Edit: Kennedy asking someone else to resign is comical in it's own way. |
after doing a search of all 3 articles, I didn't see Cheney's name appear once. The title is a bit misleading. What did he say and when did he say it?
|
ok, thanks for posting that 4th one.
|
Do you ever get the feeling that the media is trying to get us to fight with each other?
|
Quote:
Not really, no. |
Quote:
Obviously. |
Wait..?
![]() SI |
Throes is a great word... its either used in war or passion.
|
Quote:
Don't get me started! Been there done that, oh and I read the speech too. |
Typically when I hear the vice president say things like that I'd want to gain from it some self assurance or hope. However given this VPs predeliction for fanciful overstatement, I'll just hold out with the hope that the government will take root, and that reasoned minds will win the day. The alternative, I guess is to be Rexall, who actually seems to be hoping that Iraq falls to pieces, just because he wants the president to be wrong.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In many cases yes, but not for why you seem to be saying so. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, but rather TV Ratings. Each network has to be more sensational than the other to get the ratings. One of the best ways to do that is to turn non stories into extrodinarily inflammatory reports. Fox, CNN, the NY Times, they all seem pretty good at that, and because of it they're all pretty irrelevant in my mind. In this case I get the feeling that the administration has rather adamantly said one thing and top army officials have said something quite contradictory and that's enough to get us to fight without media bias on either side. I'm sure I could go watch CNN or Fox and be spoon fed some horseshit from people who try to tell me what I'm supposed to believe to become even more annoyed and baffled, but in this case the very simple, plain facts are quite enough. You are on quite a crusade against "the media" Dutch, it's really rather strange. Sometimes facts exist. As a self proclaimed moderate, I feel like my job as an intelligent US Citizen is to read foxnews, and to read CNN, and to listen to NPR, and do my best to filter out the bullshit and slanted commentary and just read the facts and form my own opinion. Its possible. Mainstream America can't do it. Mainstream America is full of morons who demand to be spoon fed. But I think we're all smarter than that, and your one liners on the evils of the media (but seemingly only when the media reports something that isn't exactly what conservatives want to be true) don't help in the matter. Don't you think it's at least mildly interesting that our Vice President makes such a statement about the insurgency in Iraq and soon after a top Army General goes to the Senate and basically says that the truth is an absolute 180 about face from what the VP says? Bullshit removed, those are facts, and I find them interesting and worthy of discussion. I'm not a nutjob who says we're losing the war, but I am saying "I told you so" to a lot of people who supported the president and fell into the trap believing this was an easy job and we'd be in and out in 2 months. I think what's happening now was extremely easy to see coming. Now that we're there, we're doing everything right IMO, and things are progressing, but don't bullshit me with some rosy picture about a defeated enemy that can barely terrorize Iraqis anymore. |
i hope Cheneyis right, and I didn't read any of the above articles :)
|
I'm not sure why "red on red" would be seen as anything other than a good sign. After all, some of the terrorists appear to be angry at the foreign fighters coming into Iraq and blowing civilians to hell.
If those terrorists are now fighting other terrorists instead of our troops, doesn't that a) reduce the number of terrorists that are alive and b) lead to the possibility of some of the native-born terrorists changing their minds about how they've been going about trying to enact change? There were a couple of other stories that rexalll didn't point out that, while not indications that the insurgency is in its "last throes", are still interesting stories. The first is the capture of Mohammed Khalif Shaiker, one of the bigger terrorists in Iraq. He was captured with the help of local civilians in the area. More info can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/in...17zarqawi.html The second bit of news the inclusion of 15 Sunni Muslims on the panel that is drafting Iraq's new constitution. Unfortunately, one of those Sunnis was killed in a car bombing recently, and al Zarqawi is taking the credit for the assassination. He realizes that if the Sunni feel they have a legitimate voice in a new Iraq, it further erodes support for terrorist activity. Certainly Iraq isn't a peaceful place today, but from what I've read it is getting better, and with the recent elections in Lebanon and the crackdown on a democratic movement in Iran (not to mention the recent protests in Syria of all places), you'd have to admit that there are now millions of people in the Middle East who realize democracy is possible for them as well. |
Quote:
I don't want Iraq to fall to pieces, and I wish our government wasn't so crooked. I don't know how you'd gather otherwise. |
Quote:
Why? It could be the beginning of a civil war. Quote:
From an article above: "Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago."" Quote:
Good to hear. Quote:
I guess I'm just reading things differently. |
Quote:
Well no the reasoned minds that I hope win the day are among the thousands of Iraqis that risked their lives to vote last year. They are among the Iraqis that risk their lives by taking jobs as police officers. They are among the Iraqis who wish to play a role in reshaping their country. As for a predisposition for "lying"...Cheney may be given to fanciful overstatement, but you really can't call someone a liar for stating their opinion. |
Quote:
|
The funniest part of Cheney's 'last throes' comment was McClellan trying to spin it:
Quote:
Classic. McClellan must have the worst job in the world right now. Would you want to be him right now? It seems like the press now smells some blood in the water. and we may have an aggressive press for the first time since at least 9/11, and all it took were approval ratings nearing the thirties and the defeat of almost every major undertaking by the administration since the election, despite majorities in both houses. |
Quote:
"Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?" lol |
Quote:
About 10 seconds for me last night. |
Quote:
Hey, throw in a Nazi reference and you could be Karl Rove! |
Quote:
The point you're missing is that the root of this violence is in sectarian conflict. Sectarian conflict which had been repressed for decades by Hussein. Thus, this is not a simple situation where the terrorists are going to go away via attrition. What it is, is the start of a sectarian civil war, in which terrorists and terrorism will be a large part of the equation. Quote:
The point you're missing here is that to a large number of Shiites, it's just dandy if the Sunnis don't take part in the process, because the process can then favor the Shiites. Also, it should be pointed out that it's not just Al-Zarqawi and his minions who are killing Sunnis. By the way, how can you be so sure you know what Al-Zarqawi's thinking? Certainly Iraq isn't a peaceful place today, but from what I've read it is getting better[/quote] Odd. From yesterday's hearing on Capitol Hill: Quote:
Link |
![]() |
Quote:
No, you're missing the point that the foreign terrorists and national terrorists are fighting each other. That is not a civil war. That is the national terrorists fighting all perceived oppressors. That is a good thing, because they realize that the bigger enemy may now be the very people they had been working with. Quote:
You're right, just like there are tons of people here that don't think Hispanics, blacks, lower class whites, Asians, or others should take part in the political process. However, the government of a state is not determined solely by the sub-groups of the government, but by the elected officials. What is important here though, is that Zarqawi, who claimed to be there to help Iraq get rid of the US forces is now blowing up some of the same people he was supposedly there to help. That is the point, regardless of who else is killing Sunnis. |
More Cheney Bullshit:
Quote:
Sounds like a backpedal to me. All you Republicans who chastised Clinton for the definition of "is", time to eat some pie here. Quote:
Just like "they'll greet us with flowers", I'm sure. And we've "succeeded" in Afghanistan? Has he even read the recent reports from that country? Does he even care? Quote:
Typical Cheney superiority complex. Maybe, Dick, Americans are tired of having their fellow citizens slaughtered in a war you lied to us about and they no longer believe you when you say it'll all be over soon. Quote:
Except for the ones who are farmers & taxi drivers, one supposes. Quote:
Well, except North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc.... Quote:
Yeah, it's fucking Club Med down there, Dick. Quote:
You've got to be kidding me. This is what happens when you get a White House staffed with guys who have no experience fighting wars and only a passing knowledge of history. [quote]He said the insurgents will "do everything they can to disrupt" the process of building an Iraqi government, "but I think we're strong enough to defeat them." The vice president declined to put a timeline on when American forces might be able to leave Iraq. But asked about an assessment by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that the United States might begin significantly reducing troop levels in 2006, Cheney said, "I hope he's correct." "There will probably be a continued U.S. presence there for some considerable period of time, because there are some things we do they can't do -- for example, air support, some of our intelligence, communications and logistics capabilities," he said. "But I think the bulk of the effort will increasingly be taken on by Iraqi forces." Cheney also said he thought Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a fellow Republican, was "wrong" when he told U.S. News and World Report the White House was "disconnected from reality" about how the situation was deteriorating in Iraq. Quote:
If there ever was a poster boy for "armchair quarterback", it's Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney. Quote:
There's a surprise, given that this White House doesn't seem to read anything that goes against their pre-ordained ideas anyway. Quote:
The mind boggles. Quote:
Bullshit. |
Quote:
Obviously the sectarian tension among the Iraqi populous is an issue, but I think the particular "red on red" violence that we're seeing today is what the article describes, foreign jihadists vs. Iraqi nationalists. This isn't a "civil war." It's Iraqi nationalists rejecting jihadist violence against their own citizens, which is a good thing. The Sunni/Shiite/Kurd problem among Iraqis themselves is going to be something the country struggles with for a long time, but groups concerned with their own brand of Iraqi nationalism rejecting blind jihadism is a healthy development for the security situation. It's not the last throes of anything obviously, but Cheney has a right to spout his opinions and there are a number of people in the Pentagon that agree with him, it's just not a story to get quotes from them. |
Quote:
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, eh? Open your eyes, guys, you're seeing the start of a sectarian Civil War. Foreign terrorists are picking the sides they see the most long-term use in, and Iraqi nationalists are using terrorist techniques to achieve their ends. Your "bright future" where Iraqi nationalists drive out foreign terrorists and settle down to a peaceful democracy is slipping further and further away. The actions of the Shiite elected officials in the majority to not include Sunnis, and the actions of the Sunnis to reluctantly agree to work in the process is the real point you're all missing. |
Quote:
It won't be a good thing if the foreign fighters win. |
Quote:
Did you read this part of the article? Quote:
Insurgents interested in settlement versus blind jihadist violence. One is better than the other, accept that. |
Quote:
Ok, so I've heard "throes of passion" before, too but now I'm trying to figure out how it fits in here: throe ![]() ![]() n.
|
Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches
A short excerpt: Quote:
My brother's company, who will deploy to Iraq in July, are still uncertain as to whether they'll have armored vehicles when they start their tour of duty. |
Quote:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. |
Since the Administration is so enamored with WWII analogies:
Days between Pearl Harbor & the Defeat of Japan: 1,365 Days since 9/11 with bin Laden still not captured: 1,380 |
gee flere...I'm surprised you aren't placing "happy dance" icons in your rants...er...posts
|
Quote:
:rolleyes: |
Quote:
No, not quite what I was looking for...we don't really have an appropriate "happy dance" smiley...so I suppose this one will have to do... :D |
Quote:
Don't you know that if your not "fer it" then you are "agin it?" ;) |
No, it just irritates me that people take such obvious delight in bad news, especially when it means American soldier's lives are at risk.
I despised Bill Clinton, but not to the point where I hoped his excursions into Haiti and Bosnia would blow up in his face just to cause the Democrats bad political fallout. |
Quote:
I have a feeling it was a good idea I added SFL Cat to my ignore list a while ago. He's probably just accused me of wanting my brother to get blown up, right? |
Quote:
Do you honestly believe that the anti-war crowd take delight in soldiers' deaths? I rather doubt you do. For folks like myself who have been against the war from the get-go, it is more of a feeling of hopelessness. This wasn't something that I thought we should do because there is probably no chance of a long-term happy ending in this for us. Now we hear about Americans dying nearly every day and it is just plain sad. |
Quote:
Are you really this delusional? Please point out where flere is taking 'delight' in this news? In fact, I'm quite sure he's 100% the opposite of delighted and is in fact exceedingly pissed-off about this news, hence why he's harping on it. |
There once was a kindergarten class trapped in a burning building. "Help them!" said one man, "They could all die in there! We need to get them out of there!"
Said the man next to him, "Why don't you support our kindergarteners?" |
I simply don't want to see Vietnam repeat itself. Every time some fanatic straps a bomb to himself and blows up civilians and/or soldiers, anti-war politicos take the opportunity to jump in front of the TV cameras and start undermining our military efforts -- you don't think Al Jazeera loves playing that sh*t? You don't think the terrorists start high-fiving and saying, "we just keep this up a little longer, the gutless Americans will run away just like they always do."
I wonder if the media was like it is now back during WWII if we would have even won the damn thing. We lost more soldiers on Nomandy Beach during one day of fighting than we have during the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq combined. I wonder if Teddy Kennedy, of "Sheets" Byrd would have asked FDR to resign for his gross mishandling and misplanning of an invasion that cost us so many soldier's lives? For those of us who have friends and relatives over there, yeah it's scary and tough. But unlike the last time (Desert Storm), let them finish the job so our kids and grandkids don't have to go back over there again 15-20 years down the road. There once was a kindergarten class trapped in a burning building. "Help them!" said one man, "They could all die in there! We need to get them out of there!" Quote:
That is the most goddamn asinine analogy I've seen on this board. Congrats. |
Quote:
And cogent analysis on the analogy. |
The media was a factor, yes.
|
Quote:
|
What exactly is the job we need to finish?
Find WMD or evidence of? Accomplished. If they have them, we are either not going to find them or they are no longer able to be used. Oust the evil dictator? Accomplished. We got Saddam and his undies. His sons are dead. What's next? The other options that I have heard are "Keep the terrorists over there (Iraq), instead of here (US)" and/or "Establishing a democracy in the Middle East (hopefully it will spread." Either way, that leads to us occupying and directing Iraq for a long time. |
There is a difference between ...
"A suicide attack today killed fifteen people, including three American soldiers..." and "Another suicide attack has left 15 dead, including three American soldiers. Once again it appears the Bush administration has underestimated the resolve and resources of the insurgency. One can only wonder how much longer the American or the Iraqi people will tolerate such losses." And, of course, this bumps the story about a disgruntled employee going into an office complex somewhere in Peoria, Anywhere USA and blowing away five or six co-workers. |
SFL Cat, just to be clear, you are now backing off the claim that the media was responsible for the loss of the Vietnam war, correct? Also, another question:
Quote:
|
No, I'm not backing off at all. It's not the only reason we "lost," but it was certainly a leading factor.
I think the reason we invaded Iraq is because the current administration thought Saddam had WMD and had intelligence that he was actively seeking ways to export some of those weapons to terrorists groups for use against American targets. Since they either weren't there, have been moved, or are still hidden, I think the administration has been fishing for other reasons (all good, but probably not the original reason) to justify being there, especially when all the opposition cries of "seeeeeeee....no WMDs," began. As for Saddam, I thought Bush's daddy should have knocked him off during the first Gulf War. Bush Sr. certainly shouldn't have left the opposition elements in Iraq hang out to dry. If we can help establish a stable democracy in the region, I think the dividends from that alone will be worth going. |
Quote:
|
Fabricated? No, we're not talking about a CBS news story. Incorrect? Possibly, but then even those countries that didn't want us to invade were certain he had WMDs. Worth It? I think so, especially if we can establish a stable democracy, but only time will tell.
The media is petty only when they slip in political commentary or a particular slant while supposedly reporting objectively (which tends to be a majority of the time these days). |
Quote:
Iraq war: Evidence was poorly sourced and trumped up. The basic fact behind the rationale for war, that there were WMD's, is false. Calling the former "fabricated" and the latter "incorrect" is a bit intellectually dishonest. Quote:
|
From the American Armed Forces Press Service:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whether he is correct, or not, the VP is certainly entitled to his opinion, just as those who claim we are in a Vietnam-like quagmire. I think in six months to a year, we'll find out for sure whether we are close to victory or in a quagmire. |
Quote:
Wasn't that what was said 6 months ago? ;) |
Quote:
No. ;) |
Back then we were "turning the corner."
|
Quote:
Well, the one thing we do know is that if we were just fucking things up all by ourselves, the terrorists wouldn't be bombing us, now would they? Where is Iraq today if the terrorists quit bombing? Many of you keep blaming America for this mess, but we aren't the one's setting off the bombs in the mosque's and in the markets and on the roadsides. It is our enemy that is doing that. And they aren't doing it because we are being mean to the Iraqi people, it's because we are helping the Iraqi people. And the more the Iraqi people progress away from the oppressive rule of a dictator, the more the terrorists and former Baath party want to blow people up and hide. Terrorism isn't a winning strategy and it won't win the hearts and minds of these people in the end. All the anti-US propaganda in the world won't make up for the fact that the US is trying to help the Iraqi people and the Terrorists are killing them. The President has asked for your patience, not for your blood or your sweat. He's asked that of his military. Being supportive would so much more help this war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. |
Quote:
|
Rumsfeld said today that the insurgency might last another 12 years. These knuckleheads can't even agree among themselves.
|
Quote:
We whacked the hornets' nest with a stick. Sure we could blame the hornets for the fact that people are getting stung, but that's not the whole story. Moreover, it's really America's actions we discuss here. If someone were here proclaiming the wonderous merits of the Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgency, I'd be happy to serve them their share of blame for the violence and chaos in Iraq. There's plenty to go around. But nobody does, so it's kind of pointless... On the other hand, we have a lot of discussion here over the pros and cons of various American actions in Iraq. Quote:
And they hate us for our freedom, right? There are numerous reasons why people are fighting us in Iraq, and I doubt that fact that we're helping them is high on that list. It's difficult to fathom why anyone would be upset over being helped. Maybe some of what we perceive as help isn't perceived the same way there (sort of like when Hillary Clinton wanted to "help" Americans by taking their money and spending it on health care for them). It's easy to see why people would fight back against rule by outsiders. This has been one of the most regular causes of conflict and war in human history. Quote:
The more we weaken them, the stronger they get? Are you saying they weren't trying before? That doesn't make much sense.. Quote:
The insurgents don't need to win hearts and minds. They just need to make progress so slow, difficult, and costly that we pack up and go home (see Vietnam, Somalia, the Soviets in Afghanistan). Then they win. They only need the support of a small part of the population to stay in business. And their attacks are not entirely random. A majority of them are targetted at a) Americans, b) Iraqis working with Americans, c) Shiites, d) Kurds. Attacks on these targets will not erode their support base among Sunnis. We, on the other hand, do need to win hearts and minds. It's the classic counter-insurgency problem. Quote:
He has my full support for staying in Iraq and rebuilding. I'm not one of the people calling for withdrawal or a timetable (which I think would be phenomenally stupid). On the other hand I'm not about to stop pointing out the stupid mistakes the President has made until he's ready to own up to them. This is a democracy. Elected leaders need to know there is a political price to be paid for incompetence. I don't need him to grovel on his knees. Just acknowledge that mistakes have been made and stop trying to blow sunshine up our asses. When he's honest with the American people, I'll shut up. Not before. |
Quote:
Sectarian Civil War. Quote:
Same thing. 1,700 American servicemen are dead. 15,000 have been injured. Many, many families and communities are touched by these tragedies. I think they deserve some straight talk from the Administration. |
Quote:
I disagree, but we've gone round on that one before... Quote:
This I totally agree with. The administration has shown a complete lack of courage, politically and otherwise, to elucidate a vision for what the hell they're doing. They've got a chance to shape a new approach to global security and development, and they're letting it pass. They've decided to compensate for a lack of explanation by over-inflating simplistic patriotic rhetoric, and it's ultimately pretty empty, and inherently non-sensical, to the people bearing the load. Two of my best friends are over there and their primary objective is staying alive, and both of them have serious trouble measuring success by any other metric. They're just not being given a vision by their "leaders." And not to split hairs (okay, I'm splitting hairs) but half of the 15,000 injured that you cite returned to full active duty within 72 hours. It's difficult to argue that the invasion and occupation has been a massive failure when it comes to minimizing American losses, but every loss is magnified tenfold when the people giving the orders can't give you a vision for why. |
Quote:
link |
Quote:
Be cautious, one of your liberal cohorts on another board smells a trap!!!! Quote:
Man, this stuff is almost as good as all the conspiracy theories surrounding Bill Clinton!!! |
A big part of the problem is our administration's insistence on having an "Iraqi people". Simply put, there is no such entity. Iraq as it now exists, is a very recent development that was wholly imposed by the British. A mapmaker simply drew some lines in when the area was under British rule and created a colonial area. There was no thought given to who actually lived there, and no care if they got along.
Iraq would be much better off, IMO, if the region was split into different countries based on the local ethnic groups, like it was for a thousand years, prior to the start of the 1900s. But due to most of the oil being in the Kurdish region, that ain't gonna happen. It's one thing for a group of people to make the decision to join together to form a country, ala the US. It's another entirely to have a country imposed on non-cooperating groups of people and expect them to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". A lot of the violence going on right now isn't so much anti-American as it is different factions fighting each other to try and gain the upper hand in the new government over their rival groups. Hitting the Americans is more a signal of overall strength rather than an anti-American bias. They are sending the message that if "we can strike successfully against the mighty Americans, what chance do you have against us" |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
You might have a point if our troops were being hit only by Iraqi insurgents. However, with all the Syrians and Iranians running around I'm not buying it. The fact that nationalist factions of Iraqi insurgents have in some cases engaged in firefights against foreign terrorist elements might be a sign that some factions of these insurgents might be starting to think that the US could be the lesser of two evils. Do I think everything will be roses and sunshine when we leave Iraq? Probably not. But then its not always roses and sunshine here in the good 'ol USofA either. BTW, I do think the terrorist are trying to send a message to the Iraqi people. This is what happens to you if you cooperate with infidels. In the long run, I think this will backfire. |
Quote:
Well, you could make the case that Saddam had already redeclared hostilities against us by violating conditions of the Cease Fire Agreement that resulted from Desert Storm. We probably should have rolled over him the first time he fired on our fighter craft patrolling the NO FLY ZONE established by the UN. |
Quote:
Again, this goes back to the point that the borders in the countries of the Middle East are completely arbitrary, and did not exist prior to the colonization of the region by England and France. The majority of Syrians and Iranians (as well as Iraqis) are Shiite, and these most likely are the "foreign fighters" that are in Iraq. They are there to promote the Shiite cause, not a national cause. |
Quote:
Yeah, I've run aggressive scenario's through my head that would offer a massive chunk of Shia territory to Iran, Kurdish territory to Turkey, Southern Shia territory to Kuwait and Saudi, western Iraq to Jordan, and leave the small middle as it's own nation of Iraq (Tikrit, Baghdad, Fallujah). We all know the Turks and Iranian's would be better able to squash an insurgency by using the same tactics (blow shit up, ask questions later)--but I'm not so sure the Kuwaiti's, Saudi's, and Jordanian's have that kind of "technical expertise" without contracting it out. The beauty of splitting the country and letting the neighbor reap the benefits is that the terrorists would have had a lot more arabs to kill than Americans. Killing other Arabs doesn't fit well into the prime-time scheduling of Al Jazeera. Hell, maybe we should give the Iraqi people an ultimatum. Stand up and squash the insurgents yourself or 180 days from now we give your country to the Turks. That would scare me into doing the right thing! :) BTW, I knew some Turkish soldiers in Ankara that were in their mountain divisions. They were begging me to talk to somebody to let the Turks train the US on how to track down terrorists in mountainous terrain. That was in September of 01. I thought it was a great idea, but sadly, who was I going to tell? So I told my wife....but sadly, she doesn't know Donald Rumsfeld. |
Quote:
Perhaps not, but those boundaries have been set in place for generations now and as the recent unrest in Lebanon against Syria proves, sometimes nationalism outweighs ideology (in this case, the hatred of Israel). |
Quote:
Hoo boy, no way I'd start ANYTHING with the Turks unless I absoluuuuutely had to. Definitely NOT the people you want to have on your bad side. |
hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4122040.stm
Quote:
|
Quote:
Wow, and here's me thinking I'd never agree with you on anything. I 100% agree with you here. Well said. My brother's company already has the same mentality (stay alive at all costs), and they're not even in Iraq yet. |
Quote:
Again, this goes back to religion. Lebanon is a different beast in the area, since it the population is not 90%+ Islamic. It is about 60% Islamic and 40% Christian. The unrest was more due to the Christians rebelling against the autocratic Islamic governing from Syria. It has only been a few generations since the boundaries were put down, one at most two generations before the formation of the Israeli state. Israelies and Palestinians aren't getting along much better than any of the other religious factions in the Middle East. My point is that there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of how the borders are drawn in the Middle East. The only thing keeping order in the region since the borders were arbitrarily created 100 or so years ago has been the use of force. First the colonial occupiers, then a succession of oppressive dictators in the various countries. You can't think that people that have hated each other for hundreds to thousands of years all of a sudden will band together to form a democracy. It is just not going to happen. The closest example might be Europe, but they went through hundreds of years of constant major wars with each other before they've settled into the current stable and peaceful political state they are in. |
Quote:
By whom? |
By the UN, of course. The bigger the bribe, the wider your boundaries!!! :)
|
Did anyone catch the treatment of this issue on "The Daily Show" last night? It was spot on and hillarious, as per usual. You can usually find Daily Show segments on the web. I'd reccommend looking it up. Funny in that tragic sort of way.
|
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad & pathetic:
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - VP Cheney, 5/31/05 "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution" - VP Cheney, 6/24/05 "throe: severe spasm of pain; "the throes of dying"; "the throes of childbirth" 2: hard or painful trouble or struggle; "a country in the throes of economic collapse" - dictionary.com "last: Being, coming, or placed after all others; final" - dictionary.com "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years." - Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, 6/26/05 "We know where they (WMD) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Sec Def. Rumsfeld, 3/30/2003 Amount of time U.S. forces in Iraq to date: 2 years. "I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed." - Sec. Def. Rumsfeld, 6/26/05, asked if insurgency was on a list of "15 things that could go wrong by invading Iraq" that he presented to President Bush before the invasion. "It is like running a marathon. You hit the wall at 21 miles or 22 miles. If you give up, then you lose the prospect for victory or success. We're not at the 21-mile mark yet, but we are heading for the wall. We need to work our way and fight our way through the wall. It is not going to be done without work and without sacrifice. And it is not going to be done without cost in blood and treasure." - Gen. Abazaid Treasure? Marathon: ~26 miles So Rumsfeld says: 2/12 (or 2/6, 2/8, 2/10, covering all bases) Abazaid says: 21/26 REPORTER: Mr. President, we were told that you planned to sharpen your focus on Iraq. Why did this become necessary? And given the recent surge in violence, do you agree with Vice President Dick Cheney's assessment that the insurgency is in its last throes? PRESIDENT BUSH: Adam, I think about Iraq every day -- every single day -- because I understand we have troops in harm's way... [seconds later] And so, you know, I think about this every day -- every single day -- and will continue thinking about it, because I understand we've got kids in harm's way. - 6/20/2005 "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." - President Roosevelt, 12/8/41 |
Quote:
Is that a real quote? |
Quote:
Yep. From his press conference when the two guys from the EU visited. Which was last week, I think. Edit: Easy to google for: http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/s/afp/...h_050620191028 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nice to be so consistent in these matters. |
Quote:
Did you have a particular date in mind? |
Quote:
Not my call. He said himself in the earlier statements (in regards to the troops in Kosovo) that it is important for the President to say how long the troops are going to be used. Now he is saying that doing something like that would only help the groups the troops are fighting. Until politicians are held accountable for what they say campaigning versus once they get in office, the jaded view most people have of politicians is going to persist. |
Quote:
Wow. He certainly has a way with words, doesn't he? |
Quote:
Okay, let me try again. Do you have a particular timeframe that you would not obliterate with negative criticism? |
Quote:
Umm... when have I ever indicated I would obliterate proposed timeframes? I have never made any kind of post referring to that at all. So I'm not sure what you were expecting. I am trying to hold the Commander in Chief to the standards he set for himself while he was actively pursuing the position. When he was running for office, he set the bar that the President has the responsibility to publicly state how long he proposes to use the troops, and that said timeframe is necessary to determine final victory. Now he is advocating the exact opposite of that position. |
Updates:
Baghdad's Mayor deposed by Armed Gunmen: I'm having a hard time understanding how this comes to pass. I also can't find follow-up, so if anyone can find a follow-up story, I'd appreciate it. Two weeks from the end of his service contract, Guard member gets stop-lossed and eventually dies in Iraq.: Again, if we didn't have enough active troops to do the job, why did we invade? The Guard wasn't designed for this. Rice says insurgents "losing steam": This just after 14 marines were killed in a roadside bomb, 6 marine snipers were killed in an ambush, and another marine was killed by a sniper, all in the space of a couple of days. Insurgents also managed to kill a key Sunni member of the committee drafting the constitution, which is due 8/15. Key Shiites demand an autonomous Shiite in Oil-Rich S. Iraq: Yes, as part of the constitutional negotiations, with 4 days to go. |
Yeah, I was reading an article the other day about ethnic tensions in oil-rich Kirkuk. Anyway, it seems that discrimination is really widespread--post-invasion, ethnicities aren't hiring people of other ethnicities.
I wonder if a hiring quota policy will end up in the Iraqi constitution, along with other ironic tidbits such as universal health care and gun ban provisions that are already in the draft... |
Bush Says Troop Levels in Iraq Will Stay Unchanged for Now
Various emphasis mine. Quote:
Anyone else get the impression they're making it up as they go? Quote:
Translation: "Trust us, we know what we're doing." Quote:
Except that invading Iraq hasn't increased security in this country (or Iraq, for that matter). As for "laying the foundations of peace", I'd say the rising discord between Shiites & Sunnis puts the lie to that. Quote:
George W. Bush, fratboy, failed businessman and draft dodger, wouldn't know hard work if it hit him upside the head. If any of these chickenhawks knew people personally with their life on the line in Iraq, maybe they'd start seeing reality. |
Quote:
That's an absurd claim, given that Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked here successfully since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq. The war is now being fought on their soil instead of ours. |
Quote:
London, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, etc.... It's really only a matter of time unless we start making some actual improvements to homeland security. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.