Front Office Football Central
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=40110)

rexallllsc 06-23-2005 06:08 PM
Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says
 
hxxp://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/0c265113d4815a607514f53b36f3f5cc.htm

Quote:
IRAQ: Water main attack affects two million in Baghdad
22 Jun 2005 13:17:19 GMT
Source: IRIN
BAGHDAD, 22 June (IRIN) - Two million Baghdad residents have been without drinking water since 19 June after saboteurs targeted a major water main in the capital.

"The attack on the water pipes was a shock to all residents. Insurgents are not only killing innocent people but also destroying the daily lives of millions of people," Amer Salman, a senior Baghdad governorate official, said.

Salman added that they were working hard to repair the main but said that it may take up to a week to have it functioning properly again, although small-scale pumping may start within two days.

The Mansoor, Yarmouk, Kadhimiya, Baya'a, Ghazaliya and Hay al-Jame'a districts in Baghdad are the worst affected.

"Every day I have to drive 10 km to reach to a public water pipe where I can get water for washing, cleaning and drinking. My air conditioning [AC] machine needs to be filled with water manually every three hours," Kamal al-Jumaily, a Yarmouk district resident, said.

The AC machines, which have to be filled by hand, are cheap to run and are to be found in most Iraqi homes. They are particularly necessary in the summer when temperatures may reach 50 degrees centigrade.

Local doctors have reported an increase in diarrhoea and other illnesses related to the consumption of dirty water.

"Children have been the most effected, due to the dirty water being consumed now. Some families are using public pipes and unsafe wells, which are known to be contaminated," Dr Ahmed Ibraheem, at Yarmouk general hospital, said.

Ibraheem added that during the last water shortage in the capital in January, more than 200 cases of illness through consumption of contaminated water were reported, but they fear the number could be higher now as sanitation has further deteriorated in the capital.

In a desperate measure, many residents have started to dig wells in their gardens.

"The heat is increasing and in place where we acquire more comfort, Iraqis are suffering even more now from power and water shortages," Mahmoud Abbas, a Bayaa district resident said.

rexallllsc 06-23-2005 06:09 PM
Civil War?

hxxp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/in...ted=all∨ ef=login

Quote:
KARABILA, Iraq, June 20 - Late Sunday night, American marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: in the distance, mortar and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them.

In the dark, one spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer.

"Red on red," he said, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire.

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange new trend in the already complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting each other in towns along the Euphrates from Husayba, on the border, to Qaim, farther west. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.

A United Nations official who served in Iraq last year and who consulted widely with militant groups said in a telephone interview that there has been a split for some time.

"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."

The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.

The insurgency is largely hidden, making such trends difficult to discern. But marines in this western outpost have noticed a change. For Matthew Orth, a Marine sniper, the difference came this spring, when his unit was conducting an operation in Husayba. Mortar shells flew over the unit, hitting a different target.

"The thought was, "They're coming for us. But then we saw they were fighting each other," he recalled during a break in Monday's operation. "We were kind of wondering what happened. We were getting mortared twice a day, and then all of a sudden it stopped."

Access for the foreign fighters is easy through the porous border with Syria, where the main crossing, Husayba, has been closed for seven months to stem their flow. "They will come from wherever we are not," said Col. Stephen Davis, the commander of the Second Regimental Combat Team of the Second Marine Division. "Clearly there are foreign fighters here and quite clearly they are coming in from Syria."

Marines have conducted several offensives in villages along the Euphrates, including one over the past few days in Karabila, to disrupt the fighters' networks. During raids on mostly empty homes, they found nine foreign passports, and of about 40 insurgents killed, at least three were foreign, marines said.

Capt. Chris Ieva, a fast-talking 31-year-old from North Brunswick, N.J., said he could tell whether an area was controlled by foreign insurgents or locals by whether families had cellphones or guns, which foreign fighters do not allow local residents to have for fear they would spy on them. Marines cited other tactics as being commonly employed by foreigners. Sophisticated body armor, for example, is one sign, as well as land mines that are a cut above average, remote-controlled local mines, and well-chosen sniper positions.

When the marines were fighting in an operation in the area in early May, five marines were killed after their tank rolled over a mine that had been set for vehicles with large distances between the treads.

In Karabila, marines picked their way through empty houses over the past four days, looking in closets and behind closed doors, into the hidden lives of insurgents who had left behind caches of weapons, medical supplies and Jihadist literature, including an inspirational guide that attempted to justify beheading by using Islamic scripture.

As the operation ended about 6 p.m. Monday, marines, successful in their mission, lined the roof of the last house they took against the backdrop of plumes of smoke. Captain Ieva said: "Will some come back? Yes. But the bigger fruit is disrupting them. We've made them uncomfortable in their own system."

amdaily 06-23-2005 06:35 PM
hxxp://www.almendhar.com/almendharen/details.aspx?nID=4050

Quote:
Drinkable Water Returns to Baghdad’s Districts

Baghdad: Tomorrow, the operations of pumping water in Al Karkh complex would be gradually increased towards its final capacities, while citizens would feel a relative improvement in the flow of water to the pipes of their houses today. Within the same context, the National Assembly has announced the postponement of its meeting and has warned the health ministry of the existence of impurities in the water.

The media spokesman in Baghdad municipality said that various teams have been alerted to handle the heavy damages, which resulted from a sabotage act that targeted the pipe, which transports water to the main tanks in various Baghdad regions in Al Karkh accumulator in Al Taji, whose control room has also been subject to destruction due to the explosion, which increased the damages. This is because this room is responsible for distributing amounts of water to the tanks and the regions, which are fed by the accumulator responsible for securing water in the majority of regions in Baghdad, including Al Rasafa that is known for its small tanks and also depending on Al Karkh accumulator.

Yesterday, Baghdad water administration has executed trial pumping for two hours, from 6 to 8 p.m. to see the flow of water in the secondary ground pipes in various regions of Baghdad, including Al Karkh.

It is well known that Baghdad needs more than 3 million liters of water a day and that it originally suffers from a daily shortage of one million and 300 thousand liters.

On his behalf, Dr. Watheq Mohamed Yunis, manager of health control in the health ministry has called citizens to resort to boiling or sterilizing water before drinking. He pointed out that the pollution rates in water before sabotage were high and that they would certainly increase after the return of water to the pipes, as when citizens operate the water pumps, they would pull quantities of ground water and the originally existing leaks in the ground.

rexallllsc 06-23-2005 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amdaily
hxxp://www.almendhar.com/almendharen/details.aspx?nID=4050

Point?

rexallllsc 06-23-2005 06:46 PM
hxxpp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/23/iraq/main703744.shtml

Quote:
Top General: Insurgency Not Fading

WASHINGTON, June 23, 2005

(CBS/AP) The top American military commander in the Persian Gulf disputed a contention by Vice President Dick Cheney that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes" and told Congress on Thursday its strength was basically undiminished from six months ago.

Furthermore, 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."

His testimony came as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected any effort to set a timetable to get U.S. troops out of Iraq, reports CBS News Correspondent Bob Fuss

"That would be a mistake," Rumsfeld told the Senate panel. He said Americans just have to stay the course and ignore the naysayers.

In a CNN interview last month, Cheney said: "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's senior Democrat, asked Abizaid if he realized he was contradicting Cheney.

"I don't know that I would make any comment about that other than to say there's a lot of work to be done," said Abizaid. "I gave you my opinion."

Levin and other congressional Democrats — and some Republicans as well — have criticized administration officials for painting an unrealistically rosy picture of the situation in Iraq.

"The fact is that the insurgency has not weakened," Levin said. "Our men and women in uniform are serving with great honor. They deserve an objective assessment of the situation in Iraq. They deserve a clear layout of the next steps there."

"They're not getting either from the administration," Levin said.

For his part, Rumsfeld sought to explain what Cheney meant.

Between now and when an Iraqi constitution is drafted and voted on later this year, "They may very well be in their last throes by their own view cause they recognize how important it will be if the lose," he said.

Of Cheney's words specifically, Rumsfeld added: "While I didn't use them and I might not use them, I think it's understandable that we can expect that kind of a response from the enemy."

Testifying on the progress in training Iraq's own security forces, Rumsfeld said these forces have "a way to go," but progress was being made.

"Success will not be easy and it will require patience. ... But consider what has been accomplished in 12 months," Rumsfeld said, citing elections in January, economic improvements, and an increasingly improving security force.

"Timing in war is never predictable. There are never guarantees," Rumsfeld said. "Those who say we are losing this war are wrong. We are not."

Rumsfeld engaged in some contentious exchanges with committee Democrats.

"Isn't it time for you to resign?" Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., asked the defense secretary, citing what he called "gross errors and mistakes" in the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.

"I've offered my resignation to the president twice," Rumsfeld shot back, saying that President Bush had decided not to accept it. "That's his call," he said.

Edit: Kennedy asking someone else to resign is comical in it's own way.

Joe 06-23-2005 06:47 PM
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?

Joe 06-23-2005 06:48 PM
ok, thanks for posting that 4th one.

Dutch 06-23-2005 07:01 PM
Do you ever get the feeling that the media is trying to get us to fight with each other?

rexallllsc 06-23-2005 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
Do you ever get the feeling that the media is trying to get us to fight with each other?

Not really, no.

Dutch 06-23-2005 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexallllsc
Not really, no.

Obviously.

sterlingice 06-23-2005 10:09 PM
Wait..?



SI

Easy Mac 06-23-2005 10:11 PM
Throes is a great word... its either used in war or passion.

Glengoyne 06-23-2005 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice
Wait..?



SI

Don't get me started!

Been there done that, oh and I read the speech too.

Glengoyne 06-23-2005 10:23 PM
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.

NoMyths 06-23-2005 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glengoyne
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.
So let me get this straight...you're arguing that the "reasoned minds" are the ones predisposed to lying ("fanciful overstatement")?

Radii 06-23-2005 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
Do you ever get the feeling that the media is trying to get us to fight with each other?


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.

Flasch186 06-23-2005 10:54 PM
i hope Cheneyis right, and I didn't read any of the above articles :)

CamEdwards 06-23-2005 10:55 PM
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.

rexallllsc 06-24-2005 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glengoyne
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.

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.

rexallllsc 06-24-2005 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
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.

Why? It could be the beginning of a civil war.

Quote:
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?

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:
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

Good to hear.

Quote:
Certainly Iraq isn't a peaceful place today, but from what I've read it is getting better

I guess I'm just reading things differently.

Glengoyne 06-24-2005 02:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMyths
So let me get this straight...you're arguing that the "reasoned minds" are the ones predisposed to lying ("fanciful overstatement")?

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.

NoMyths 06-24-2005 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glengoyne
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.
You can if their stated opinion is a lie. Or are you arguing that a "fanciful overstatement" isn't a lie? Because, after all, both he and General Abizaid can't be correct, and one of them is aware that he's giving false information.

MrBigglesworth 06-24-2005 02:56 AM
The funniest part of Cheney's 'last throes' comment was McClellan trying to spin it:
Quote:
Q Scott, is the insurgency in Iraq in its 'last throes'?

McCLELLAN: Terry, you have a desperate group of terrorists in Iraq that are doing everything they can to try to derail the transition to democracy. The Iraqi people have made it clear that they want a free and democratic and peaceful future. And that's why we're doing everything we can, along with other countries, to support the Iraqi people as they move forward....

Q But the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: The Vice President talked about that the other day -- you have a desperate group of terrorists who recognize how high the stakes are in Iraq. A free Iraq will be a significant blow to their ambitions.

Q But they're killing more Americans, they're killing more Iraqis. That's the last throes?

McCLELLAN: Innocent -- I say innocent civilians. And it doesn't take a lot of people to cause mass damage when you're willing to strap a bomb onto yourself, get in a car and go and attack innocent civilians. That's the kind of people that we're dealing with. That's what I say when we're talking about a determined enemy.

Q Right. What is the evidence that the insurgency is in its last throes?

McCLELLAN: I think I just explained to you the desperation of terrorists and their tactics.

Q What's the evidence on the ground that it's being extinguished?

McCLELLAN: Terry, we're making great progress to defeat the terrorist and regime elements. You're seeing Iraqis now playing more of a role in addressing the security threats that they face. They're working side by side with our coalition forces. They're working on their own. There are a lot of special forces in Iraq that are taking the battle to the enemy in Iraq. And so this is a period when they are in a desperate mode.

Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?

McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve....

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.

rexallllsc 06-24-2005 03:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
The funniest part of Cheney's 'last throes' comment was McClellan trying to spin it:

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.


"Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?"

lol

Bee 06-24-2005 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexallllsc
"Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a 'last throe' lasts for?"

lol

About 10 seconds for me last night.

flere-imsaho 06-24-2005 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glengoyne
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.

Hey, throw in a Nazi reference and you could be Karl Rove!

flere-imsaho 06-24-2005 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
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?

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 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.


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:
Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said he had been briefed by military officials who said that both attacks and casualties have increased. There has been a spike in civilian casualties in Iraq, and May was one of the deadliest months for U.S. soldiers, officials have said, estimating that attacks are averaging about 60 per day.

But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top American commander in Iraq, responded that the insurgency is "localized," most of the country is relatively peaceful, and that attacks, compared with a year ago, are about the same.

"If they're up, it's only slightly. It's not significant," Casey said.

"But the fact that it's not significantly down isn't encouraging to me," said McCain.

Link

flere-imsaho 06-24-2005 10:29 AM

Warhammer 06-24-2005 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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.

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:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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.

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.

flere-imsaho 06-24-2005 11:06 AM
More Cheney Bullshit:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended his recent comment that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," insisting that progress being made in setting up a new Iraqi government and establishing democracy there will indeed end the violence -- eventually.

However, in an exclusive interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Cheney said he thinks there still will be"a lot of bloodshed" in the coming months, as the insurgents try to stop the move toward democracy in Iraq.

"If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period, the throes of a revolution," he said. "The point would be that the conflict will be intense, but it's intense because the terrorists understand that if we're successful at accomplishing our objective -- standing up a democracy in Iraq -- that that's a huge defeat for them.

Sounds like a backpedal to me. All you Republicans who chastised Clinton for the definition of "is", time to eat some pie here.

Quote:
"We will succeed in Iraq, just like we did in Afghanistan. We will stand up a new government under an Iraqi-drafted constitution. We will defeat that insurgency, and, in fact, it will be an enormous success story."

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:
A recent surge in fighting has raised fears that an Iraq-style quagmire is developing in Afghanistan just months ahead of key legislative elections.

American fighter planes bombarded a southern Afghanistan rebel hide-out with missiles and bombs Tuesday, killing up to 76 insurgents in one of the deadliest single clashes since the Taliban's ouster in 2001.

At least 12 Afghan police and soldiers also died in the fighting and five U.S. troops were wounded.

Cheney also said Bush administration officials "don't pay a lot of attention" to polls showing declining public support among Americans for the Iraq war.

"The last thing you want to do is to read the latest poll and then base policy on that," he said. "Presidents are generally ineffective if they spend all their time reading the polls and trying to make policy accordingly.

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:
Gitmo detainees 'living in the tropics'
"We are doing what we believe is right. We're convinced it's right. We're convinced that in fact we'll achieve our objectives."

The vice president also told Blitzer that "we've got a pretty good idea of the general area" where al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden is hiding, but he said, "I don't have the street address."

Asked to identify the general area, Cheney demurred, saying he wouldn't talk about intelligence matters. Pressed on when bin Laden might be captured, he said, "What, do you expect me to say: Three weeks from next Tuesday?"

"I'm convinced eventually we'll get him," he said.

Cheney also rejected calls for closing the detention facility for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the inmates there "are serious, deadly threats" who will "go back to trying to kill Americans" if they are released.

Except for the ones who are farmers & taxi drivers, one supposes.

Quote:
He also defended the treatment of prisoners by the U.S. military at Guantanamo, telling Blitzer, "There isn't any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we're treating these people."

Well, except North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Syria, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc....

Quote:
"They're living in the tropics. They're well fed. They've got everything they could possibly want," the vice president said.

Yeah, it's fucking Club Med down there, Dick.

Quote:
Cheney compared the current situation in Iraq to the last months of World War II, when Germans launched a desperate offensive in the Battle of the Bulge and the Japanese offered stiff resistance on Okinawa.

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:
"Washington has got a lot of people in it who were armchair quarterbacks or who like to comment on the passing scene," he said. "But those who have predicted the demise of our efforts since 9/11 -- as we have fought the war on terror, as we have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan -- did not know what they were talking about."

If there ever was a poster boy for "armchair quarterback", it's Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney.

Quote:
Cheney said he had not read the so-called "Downing Street memo," a document written by a British official in the fall of 2002 suggesting that President Bush had already decided to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and that U.S. officials were over hyping intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to build support for the policy.

There's a surprise, given that this White House doesn't seem to read anything that goes against their pre-ordained ideas anyway.

Quote:
However, the vice president said the premise of the memo -- that a decision to go to war had been made months before the March 2003 invasion -- was "wrong."

The mind boggles.

Quote:
"Remember what happened after the supposed memo was written. We went to the United Nations. We got a unanimous vote out of the Security Council for a resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to come clean," he said.

"The president of the United States took advantage of every possibility to try to resolve this without having to use military force. It wasn't possible in this case."

Bullshit.

MalcPow 06-24-2005 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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.

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.

flere-imsaho 06-24-2005 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcPow
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.

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.

Qwikshot 06-24-2005 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
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.
.

It won't be a good thing if the foreign fighters win.

MalcPow 06-24-2005 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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.

Did you read this part of the article?

Quote:
"There is a rift," said the official, who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the talks he had held. "I'm certain that the nationalist Iraqi part of the insurgency is very much fed up with the Jihadists grabbing the headlines and carrying out the sort of violence that they don't want against innocent civilians."

The nationalist insurgent groups, "are giving a lot of signals implying that there should be a settlement with the Americans," while the Jihadists have a purely ideological agenda, he added.

Insurgents interested in settlement versus blind jihadist violence. One is better than the other, accept that.

sterlingice 06-24-2005 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Mac
Throes is a great word... its either used in war or passion.

Ok, so I've heard "throes of passion" before, too but now I'm trying to figure out how it fits in here:

throe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thr)
n.
  1. A severe pang or spasm of pain, as in childbirth. See Synonyms at pain.
  2. throes A condition of agonizing struggle or trouble: a country in the throes of economic collapse.
SI

flere-imsaho 06-25-2005 04:13 PM
Safer Vehicles for Soldiers: A Tale of Delays and Glitches

A short excerpt:

Quote:
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to tour the Abu Ghraib prison camp, military officials did not rely on a government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground. Instead, they turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner.

State Department officials traveling in Iraq use armored vehicles that are built with V-shaped hulls to better deflect bullets and bombs. Members of Congress favor another model, called the M1117, which can endure 12-pound explosives and .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds.

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.

dawgfan 06-25-2005 05:41 PM
Quote:
When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited Iraq last year to tour the Abu Ghraib prison camp, military officials did not rely on a government-issued Humvee to transport him safely on the ground. Instead, they turned to Halliburton, the oil services contractor, which lent the Pentagon a rolling fortress of steel called the Rhino Runner.

[/QState Department officials traveling in Iraq use armored vehicles that are built with V-shaped hulls to better deflect bullets and bombs. Members of Congress favor another model, called the M1117, which can endure 12-pound explosives and .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

flere-imsaho 06-27-2005 08:52 AM
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

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 09:51 AM
gee flere...I'm surprised you aren't placing "happy dance" icons in your rants...er...posts

dawgfan 06-27-2005 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
gee flere...I'm surprised you aren't placing "happy dance" icons in your rants...er...posts

:rolleyes:

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgfan
:rolleyes:

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

Swaggs 06-27-2005 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgfan
:rolleyes:

Don't you know that if your not "fer it" then you are "agin it?" ;)

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 10:59 AM
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.

flere-imsaho 06-27-2005 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgfan
:rolleyes:

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?

Swaggs 06-27-2005 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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.

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.

dawgfan 06-27-2005 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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.

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.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 11:44 AM
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?"

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 01:34 PM
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:
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?"

That is the most goddamn asinine analogy I've seen on this board. Congrats.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
I simply don't want to see Vietnam repeat itself.
Ah now I see, it was the media's fault that we lost Vietnam :rolleyes:

And cogent analysis on the analogy.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 01:45 PM
The media was a factor, yes.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
The media was a factor, yes.
So if the media had not reported the facts coming out of Vietnam, we would have won?

Swaggs 06-27-2005 01:57 PM
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.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 02:01 PM
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.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 02:19 PM
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:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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?
What is the reason that you think we invaded Iraq, and what is an appropriate human cost for the completion of that goal?

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 02:29 PM
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.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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.
So now, if I am following your logic, the media is being petty by dwelling on what few deaths we have had, even though those deaths were in vain because our original reason to go to war turned out to be completely unjustified? Since the reason for our invasion was fabricated, how many deaths would be 'too many', in your eyes?

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 03:13 PM
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).

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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.
CBS News story: Evidence was poorly sourced and trumped up. The basic facts behind the story are, so far as anyone can tell, true.
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:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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).
I agree with you, they have been derelect in their duty recently, with their focus on missing white women instead of the Downing Street Memo, and their so far ignoring of the fact that we are now negotiating with terrorists.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 03:28 PM
From the American Armed Forces Press Service:
Quote:
Cheney Attributes Spike in Attacks to Insurgents Sensing Defeat
By Sgt. Sara Wood

Increased violence and a growing number of foreign insurgents are signs that the United States is close to accomplishing its objective in Iraq, Vice President Richard B. Cheney said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer June 23.
You can't make this stuff up.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
From the American Armed Forces Press Service:

You can't make this stuff up.

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.

ISiddiqui 06-27-2005 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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.

Wasn't that what was said 6 months ago? ;)

Dutch 06-27-2005 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui
Wasn't that what was said 6 months ago? ;)

No. ;)

-Mojo Jojo- 06-27-2005 07:12 PM
Back then we were "turning the corner."

Dutch 06-27-2005 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-
Back then we were "turning the corner."

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.

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
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.
I think a competent, rational administration would be able to help the Iraqi's. Unfortunately, we have to go through the rebuilding withe the administration we have, not the administration we wish we had, and there are certain known unknowns and some unknown unknowns that the administration can not handle. Really though, if you think the American government cares a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, I have some nice beachfront property in Baghdad for sale, real cheap. Even if you concede that Iraqis and not the WMD's were the real impetus for invasion, the real goal was American power and hegomony, not the benefit of the Iraqis, which was a secondary goal at best. Any neocon essay will tell you that.

clintl 06-27-2005 08:54 PM
Rumsfeld said today that the insurgency might last another 12 years. These knuckleheads can't even agree among themselves.

-Mojo Jojo- 06-27-2005 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
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.

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:
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 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:
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.

The more we weaken them, the stronger they get? Are you saying they weren't trying before? That doesn't make much sense..

Quote:
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 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:
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.

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.

flere-imsaho 06-27-2005 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
Where is Iraq today if the terrorists quit bombing?

Sectarian Civil War.

Quote:
The President has asked for your patience, not for your blood or your sweat. He's asked that of his military.

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.

MalcPow 06-27-2005 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
Sectarian Civil War..

I disagree, but we've gone round on that one before...

Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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.

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.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 10:21 PM
Quote:
Last week, before Reagan's departure to the ultimate "shining city" obliterated all other news coverage, a curious change in rhetoric began sweeping over the political landscape. Whereas Bush and his supporters often likened the fight against terrorism (and therefore Iraq) to fighting "evil", in a general "evil is bad" sort of way, the D-Day anniversary begged for new comparisons to the Second World War. Condi Rice and Donni Rumsfeld stepped up these comparisons earlier this year (especially as it related to reconstruction efforts), and Bush himself has echoed the arguments in recent speeches, including his Air Force Academy address last Wednesday.

Some of the parallels strain credulity, specifically with regards to Rumsfeld's observation that disgruntled post-SS officers caused problems similar to the current Saddam loyalists and Iraqi insurgents -- true to a point, but we're talking about a few isolated incidents in Germany versus almost daily fighting in so-called "post-war" Iraq. Incidents against U.S. forces were rare in Japan, too, although Japan had suffered so much near the end they were more demoralized than angry. (Well, that, and MacArthur's first order was to completely disarm the Japanese populace, so that probably helped, too.)

But many other comparisons end up in Bush's favor. Unlike Germany and Japan, for example, Iraq sits on oil reserves which will provide an enormous amount of wealth for the nation, and make it less dependent on foreign aid than the post-WWII axis. (It also helps that Saddam was deposed with a shocking minimum of collateral damage to the country.) As Minnesota congressman Gil Gutknecht has pointed out, "it took three years to get an independent central bank in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get police established in Germany. In Iraq, it took two months. It took 14 months to get a cabinet in Germany. In Iraq, it took four months." Indeed, the incredible speed and success of this occupation make post-war Germany and Japan seem molasses-slow. Also more than after WWII, despite the pain of the insurgencies, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. efforts, repeatedly stating than the removal of Saddam was worth any subsequent hardship by a 2 to 1 margin (62% to 30%), and that Iraq will certainly be better off in five years than if the coalition hadn't acted by more than an 8 to 1 margin (67% to 8%). And one can expect those numbers to increase when the governing council has full sovereignty.

All those decrying why we should have the right to "force democracy" on other peoples (how's that for an oxymoron) should find me a person currently living in Japan who hates how it all worked out for them. Theirs was a greater cultural and political shift than is now being tried in Iraq (and had just as many naysayers worldwide claiming the nations' respective peoples just "couldn't culturally adjust" to democracy, which really is quite insulting when you think about it.) The plan for post-war Japan immediately included such foreign concepts as a woman's right to vote, the disarming of the nation's weapons (civilian and military), holding free elections, redistribution of land wealth, forming labor unions, free exercise of religion, open instruction in schools, and tons of other changes similar to what we've done in Iraq and that were if anything a lot more radical for the Japanese. The occupation and interim government of Japan was essentially run by one man, General MacArthur, in many ways much more "unilateral" than anything Bush has done in the past two years (though there was more worldwide support, albeit only vocal.) And this occupation lasted seven years.

Of course, it is easy to point out that, unlike Iraq, Japan did in fact personally attack us, at Pearl Harbor. Perhaps an ambitious ludicrosity commenter would say "ah, but these comparisons you make seem more in tune with our invasion, occupation, and rebuilding of Afghanistan, not Iraq." But consider where this argument would logically take you, a la Susan Sarandon: "Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11. Iraq may have been led by a madman bent on world domination, tried exercising too much 'breathing room' and assassinating a world leader, was accumulating more illegal weapons programs in defiance of international law, was brutalizing its own people and committing acts of genocide against the Kurdish people through mass extermination, but they hadn't directly attacked us so it was none of our business." It doesn't take a stretch to word-swap Germany for Iraq, Pearl Harbor for 9-11, and the Jews for the Kurds before you've just talked yourself out of attacking Hitler. Sure, Saddam was more of a 1939 Hitler than a 1943 Hitler, but remember the whole point of this "pre-emption" was that it's better to wage a little war now than suffer through a big war later.

And does anyone really wish we hadn't entered WWII a few years earlier?

link

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
I agree with you, they [the media] have been derelect in their duty recently, with their focus on missing white women instead of the Downing Street Memo, and their so far ignoring of the fact that we are now negotiating with terrorists.

Be cautious, one of your liberal cohorts on another board smells a trap!!!!

Quote:
We all know the Downing Street Memo is accurate. We should also realize that it represents sufficient legal grounds for impeachment of Bush (and usefully that would include his replacement, Cheney and subsequently replacement of the entire Bush Cabinet).

Still, since Democrats/Liberals/Progressives have no access or control over most American's primary source of news and information--television, and the Bush Administration and Republican Leadership both do have control over the media and don't want this memo publicized... Most Americans will never even hear about the Downing Street Memo, much less ever see/hear unbiased coverage of it. Congress knows, but Democrats are too weak to accomplish anything and would be effectively blocked by the majority if they ever managed to get something going.

There's one other concern, as I see it. This is all just too easy, too neat. Something of this magnitude would have seen unseen but severe efforts to suppress and discredit it. Given this uncharacteristic behavior, it seem something's not quite right here. Remember, it was probably a clever psy-ops action initiated by Karl Rove that arranged for a damning but uniquely discreditable set of documents describing Bush's embarassing national guard record to end up in the hands of CBS/Dan Rather. Therein too there was no protest--for a time. Everyone knew the contents of the documents was true, and even had independent verification including affidavits of people involved in the Texas Air National Guard. Even so, the mere fact that the documents could be shown to not be originals or photocopies thereof meant that the documents could not be relied upon. An interesting fact of human nature is that just because the documents weren't proper copies and regardless of the fact that they were almost certain to have been the supremely clever kind of false documents that included the truth of the originals verbatim, people immediately concluded it was an attempt to smear Bush and mentally threw out the baby with the bathwater. That is, since the docs weren't verifiable, their contents were assumed to be false (despite other solid evidence to the contrary). It was, rather, a well crafted public relations bomb, designed to immunize Bush from his prior record and from future attacks (everyone felt sorry for Bush being "falsely" attacked like that; so any future attacks--even with provable, verifiable true documents would be rejected out of hand), and to blow up in the face of CBS, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather (all of whom were hated by Conservatives, CBS for being fair and balanced, 60 Minutes for frequently exposing the truth, and Dan Rather for his harshe treatment of Richard Nixon long ago).

In other words, this might be a trap. If Democrats did rally around it, and press for impeachment... the Republicans would allow the fight to impede the functioning of the government and let Democrats get themselves deeply embroiled. Then, suddenly, "proof" that the Downing Street Memo is a forgery, nevermind that it is almost certainly the truth, perhaps a verbatim copy of a real report. Instantly, a large segment of the population would disbelieve the contents of the memo. The impeachment proceedings would be cancelled. Large numbers of the electorate would now be even more extremely unlikely to trust the judgement of Democrats, and even lay a serious case of blame upon Democrats for the cost, diversion and obstructionism that such a circumstance would have involved! We'd be blown out of the water with disasterous political results. Even if we had additional independent proof of the truth of the misdeeds of the Bush Administration we wouldn't be able to hold the process together. We would look like rabble rousers, seeking to destroy a president just because we don't like him and willing to obstruct the functioning of the government to get our way! We would certainly look the fool.

We must approach this with caution and perhaps try not to appear too eager. Yet it's important that the memo be brought to the attention of all Americans in order to begin to assail the rigid worldviews that are held by so many. They need to know that their blessed leader has misled and used them at great cost.

Man, this stuff is almost as good as all the conspiracy theories surrounding Bill Clinton!!!

cartman 06-27-2005 10:40 PM
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"

MrBigglesworth 06-27-2005 10:50 PM
Quote:
Also more than after WWII, despite the pain of the insurgencies, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly supportive of the U.S. efforts, repeatedly stating than the removal of Saddam was worth any subsequent hardship by a 2 to 1 margin (62% to 30%), and that Iraq will certainly be better off in five years than if the coalition hadn't acted by more than an 8 to 1 margin (67% to 8%). And one can expect those numbers to increase when the governing council has full sovereignty.
If you want to talk Iraqi polls, a majority of them want us to leave. And helping the Iraqi people is all well and good, but that doesn't address whether or not the cost that we have to pay is too high.

Quote:
It doesn't take a stretch to word-swap Germany for Iraq, Pearl Harbor for 9-11, and the Jews for the Kurds before you've just talked yourself out of attacking Hitler. Sure, Saddam was more of a 1939 Hitler than a 1943 Hitler...
The whole argument falls apart when you realize that Germany declared war on us (shortly after Pearl Harbor), not the other way around. In fact, many historians point to that as just another dumb move by Hitler, doubting that the US would have immediately gotten into the war in Europe if Hitler had not declared war.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartman
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"

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.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 11:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth
The whole argument falls apart when you realize that Germany declared war on us (shortly after Pearl Harbor), not the other way around. In fact, many historians point to that as just another dumb move by Hitler, doubting that the US would have immediately gotten into the war in Europe if Hitler had not declared war.

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.

cartman 06-27-2005 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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.

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.

Dutch 06-27-2005 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
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"

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.

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
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.

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).

SFL Cat 06-27-2005 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
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.

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.

rexallllsc 06-28-2005 01:20 AM
hxxp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4122040.stm

Quote:
'New militant threat' from Iraq
Scene of a suicide attack in Baghdad
The report warns that veteran Iraqi militants may spread their methods
The insurgency in Iraq is creating a new type of Islamic militant who could go on to destabilise other countries, a leaked CIA report says.

The classified document says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to co-ordinated attacks.

It says these skills may make them more dangerous than fighters from Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s.

And the threat may grow when the Iraq insurgency ends and fighters disperse.

'Urban terrorism'

Militants could pose problems in their countries of origin, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but the report says countries further afield, including the US and the UK, could also be at risk.

Many recruits to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network trained and fought in Afghanistan, during the struggle against the Soviet-backed regime.

The broad conclusions of the report have been confirmed by an unnamed CIA official and are said to have been widely circulated in the intelligence community.

Earlier this year, the head of the CIA, Porter Goss, warned that unrest in Iraq was providing Islamist militants with training and contacts that could be used in new attacks abroad.

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism," he said.

flere-imsaho 06-28-2005 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcPow
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."

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.

cartman 06-28-2005 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFL Cat
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).

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.

Dutch 06-28-2005 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
My point is that there needs to be a serious re-evaluation of how the borders are drawn in the Middle East.

By whom?

SFL Cat 06-28-2005 01:02 PM
By the UN, of course. The bigger the bribe, the wider your boundaries!!! :)

Honolulu_Blue 06-28-2005 01:41 PM
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.

flere-imsaho 06-28-2005 02:40 PM
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

rexallllsc 06-28-2005 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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


Is that a real quote?

flere-imsaho 06-28-2005 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexallllsc
Is that a real 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

MrBigglesworth 06-28-2005 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
"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.
Considering the aftermath, you would think whether or not this was on the list would be burned into his mind.

cartman 06-28-2005 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Candidate George W. Bush 4/9/99
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Candidate George W. Bush 6/5/99
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

Quote:
Originally Posted by President George W. Bush, 6/24/05
“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

Nice to be so consistent in these matters.

Dutch 06-28-2005 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
Nice to be so consistent in these matters.

Did you have a particular date in mind?

cartman 06-28-2005 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
Did you have a particular date in mind?

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.

rexallllsc 06-28-2005 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
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

Wow. He certainly has a way with words, doesn't he?

Dutch 06-28-2005 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cartman
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.

Okay, let me try again. Do you have a particular timeframe that you would not obliterate with negative criticism?

cartman 06-28-2005 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch
Okay, let me try again. Do you have a particular timeframe that you would not obliterate with negative criticism?

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.

flere-imsaho 08-11-2005 11:24 AM
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.

Klinglerware 08-11-2005 11:33 AM
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...

flere-imsaho 08-11-2005 02:17 PM
Bush Says Troop Levels in Iraq Will Stay Unchanged for Now

Various emphasis mine.

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 - President Bush said today that there had been no decision on raising or lowering the number of American troops in Iraq, but he asserted that the United States would not betray the Iraqi people by withdrawing its forces too soon.

"No decision has been made yet," he said. "I know there's a lot of speculation and rumors about that."

Anyone else get the impression they're making it up as they go?

Quote:
Noting that the United States had bolstered troop strength for the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Bush left open the possibility of future adjustments. But "pulling troops out prematurely will betray the Iraqis," he said, adding that progress was being made on training Iraqis to defend themselves.

"Oh, I know it's hard for some Americans to see that progress, but we are making progress," the president said at a news conference at his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

Translation: "Trust us, we know what we're doing."

Quote:
Mr. Bush, who appeared with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he was confident that an Iraqi constitution would be agreed upon by Monday, the target date.

Turning to Iraq's neighbor Iran, he signaled that the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would be granted a United States visa so that he could visit United Nations headquarters in New York City.

Mr. Bush said accusations by former hostages that Mr. Ahmadinejad was involved in the 1979 takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran were still being investigated. But, he noted that "we have an agreement with the United Nations to allow people to come to meet, and I suspect he will be here to meet at the United Nations."

Acknowledging the presence outside his ranch of Cindy Sheehan, a Californian whose son was killed in action in Iraq last year and who has been demanding a meeting with the president to present criticism of his policies, Mr. Bush said he sympathized with her, as he does with all Americans who have lost loved ones in Iraq, but that he believed that their sacrifices will ultimately be proved worthwhile.

"She feels strongly about her position, and she has every right in the world to say what she believes," Mr. Bush said. "This is America. She has a right to her position. And I've thought long and hard about her position."

But he did not address Ms. Sheehan's demands for a meeting to discuss her son. Ms. Sheehan, who met once previously with Mr. Bush after her son's death, has vowed to camp outside the ranch until his vacation ends later this month.

"I've heard her position from others, which is, get out of Iraq now," Mr. Bush said. "And it would be a mistake for the security of this country and the ability to lay the foundations for peace in the long run if we were to do so."

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:
The president sounded relaxed but serious as he restated his position that "a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East" would be a deterrent to terrorists in the region, and that the United States and its allies in Iraq were on the right side of history.

"I know it's tough, and I know it's hard work," he said. "But America has done hard work before. And as a result of the hard work we have done before, we have laid the foundation for peace for future generations."

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.

gstelmack 08-11-2005 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
Except that invading Iraq hasn't increased security in this country

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.

flere-imsaho 08-11-2005 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gstelmack
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.

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 08:11 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.