Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on December 02, 2007, 02:56:05 PM
-
link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2971288.ece)
Difficult to find stories such as this, esp. considering stuff like this exemplifies what is finally going right in Iraq. If the Dems wanna say that the surge had nothing to do with it, that's fine, but a least make stories such as this one KNOWN.
One morning in late May, a former Iraqi military intelligence officer working as an American double agent walked up to the al-Qaeda ruler of west Baghdad. The exchange of words, then bullets, that followed has transformed the most volatile neighbourhood of Baghdad into an unexpected haven of calm.
It may, according to US officers, be one of the most significant gunfights since the 2003 invasion, and its ripples across Baghdad are bringing local Sunni and Shia men together to fight terrorists and militia in other neighbourhoods.
The showdown went like this: “Hajji Sabah, isn’t it time you stopped already?” Abu Abed al-Obeidi, a diminutive 37-year-old with a drooping moustache, tired eyes and a ready smile, said. “You have destroyed Amariyah,” he added, referring to the neighbourhood.
“Who are you?” Sabah, the Islamist emir, sneered. “We’re al-Qaeda. I’ll kill you all and raze your homes.”
“You can try,” Mr al-Obeidi said.
The emir reached for his pistol. He was faster than Mr al-Obeidi, but his Glock 9mm jammed. As he turned to run, Mr al-Obeidi emptied his pistol into his back. His assault on al-Qaeda had begun.
Amariyah has experienced a startling rebirth since that western-style shootout. In May its streets were filled with corpses being picked over by stray dogs. American troops ventured in rarely. When they did, they used heavily armoured vehicles, several of which were blown apart by mines.
Now the shops and cafés are open, and schoolchildren and women stroll the streets. Mr al-Obeidi’s men patrol on foot with American troops and Iraqi soldiers.
After the Americans rolled into Baghdad in 2003, Mr al-Obeidi, a sniper and military intelligence major in Saddam Hussein’s army, briefly joined the Sunni resistance. Within a year he had grown disillusioned with al-Qaeda, which had taken over the movement with the aim of sparking a civil war between Iraq’s Shia majority and Sunni minority.
In an abrupt about-face, he offered his services as an intelligence agent to the Americans. “I have a basic principle to fight anybody who is hurting my fellow citizens,” he said, surrounded by his uniformed, well-armed gunmen in his large offices in Amariyah. “That’s why I co-operated in 2004 with the Americans and started to work against al-Qaeda.”
He used his skills as a secret agent and former insurgent to infiltrate extreme Islamist groups. He has also built up a network of close comrades from Saddam’s sacked officer corps and the insurgency. This spring, dismayed by the failure of the Iraqi Government and its US allies to stem the bloodshed by al-Qaeda, he decided to act directly himself.
The May gunbattle was touch and go. Of the 150 men Mr al-Obeidi had gathered to fight, all but 15 fled when the bullets and rocket-propelled grenades started to fly.
He had divided his men into two groups, each ruthlessly targeting al-Qaeda leaders. As Mr al-Obeidi shot dead Sabah, his deputy, Zayed, was gunning down his No 2, known as Omar the Slayer. Zayed died in the shootout.
Outgunned, Mr al-Obeidi and his remaining men retreated to a mosque, where his friend, Sheikh Walid alAzzawi, an imam, announced over the minaret loudspeakers what may be the first jihad against al-Qaeda.
Mr al-Obeidi had contacted the Americans before the attack and asked them not to intervene. Unusually, the US Army consented. After a night of fighting, the rebels were down to three men. Sheikh Walid called the Americans and begged for support. They arrived in force and cut down the Islamists.
The Americans had hit a goldmine in Mr al-Obeidi. With his intelligence skills and local gunmen, they suddenly found that they could identify an elusive enemy. The former insurgents knew exactly where to find the Islamists and their weapons. Within a month Mr al-Obeidi’s men had led the Americans on a series of raids that swept the Islamists from Amariyah.
The recent turning of Sunni tribes and insurgents against al-Qaeda in western Iraq and Baghdad has become known as the Sunni Awakening. Here, however, it is more of a national awakening — Mr al-Obeidi’s 600- man force includes disillusioned Shia soldiers as well as Sunni former officers who had worked secretly for the US.
The Shia population of Amariyah, driven out by Sunni extremists, has started to return. “I wish we had a dozen Abu Abeds,” Abdelrazaq Abu Muhammad, a 66-year-old Shia who was chased from Amariyah by alQaeda and returned a couple of weeks ago, said. “He is working round the clock, watching and guarding.”
Article is lengthy, but it gives you a unique insight into what goes on behind the scenes over there
-
About time they started to fight.
-
I think it has more to do with the fact the Iraqi's are finally starting to take some responsibility for their own country. I think they have finally realized that they will be better off if they start rebuilding their country rather than trying to kill each other.
Surge or no surge if they still wanted to fight us, they would be.
-
Surge or no surge if they still wanted to fight us, they would be.
====
They are still fighting us crockett. The insurgency is lethal today.
In my opinion the reduction of violence in Iraq is due to the fact that their strategy of open violence against everyone with a head on their shoulders has failed. It would appear that "God is not willing" and they are finally getting the message.
Plus, I believe their in-fighting and inability to achieve Bin Ladens call for solidarity, coupled with their losses in operations against the US military, have finally surpassed their sustainability mark. They are losing this war against the Western democracies, any way you cut it, they are losing it and they know it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Surge or no surge if they still wanted to fight us, they would be.
====
They are still fighting us crockett. The insurgency is lethal today.
In my opinion the reduction of violence in Iraq is due to the fact that their strategy of open violence against everyone with a head on their shoulders has failed. It would appear that "God is not willing" and they are finally getting the message.
Plus, I believe their in-fighting and inability to achieve Bin Ladens call for solidarity, coupled with their losses in operations against the US military, have finally surpassed their sustainability mark. They are losing this war against the Western democracies, any way you cut it, they are losing it and they know it.
'THEY', being AlQueda---What isn't touched on much is that they made Iraq their Alamo, and they have lost---Sunnis tand the Sh word that filter stops you from typing, have united in their utter hatred of these aholes
-
The fact that improvements are being seen in Iraq is fantastic, it means that less Americans will die there, and someday we can get out.
The improving situation is also the last thing democrats wanted, they would rather lose the war to help with the election.
-
So the enemy that wasn't there before we invaded is now being swept from the country by people fed up with the interlopers. I'm glad things are going well. But calling this a victory or even the start of one is like breaking a dish while cooking dinner and then declaring dinner ready when the shards are cleaned up.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
coffee now costs $5.75, takes 25 minutes and requires an agonizing choice between the cinnamon-gingerbread-persimmon latte with coxcomb sprinkles and the decaf venti pepperoni-Eurasian-miIfoil macchiato. Who would have foreseen that the nation that inflicted fast food and drive-thru restaurants on the planet would then take the fastest menu item of all and turn it into a kabuki-paced performance art? What mad genius!
Where is that quote from? I completely empathize with the author.
Ever since I started drinking coffee (maybe 10 years now...I'm somewhat young), I've had my blood pressure raised about 10 points from standing in line behind some yupster coffee drinking poser ordering a 2000 calorie coffee drink when all I want is a freaking "small to go". People like this would be much better served by just going to Ben & Jerry's or Dairy Queen and getting some coffee powder sprinkled in their milkshake.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack... carry on
-
Originally posted by Dago
[An] improving situation is also the last thing democrats [want], they would rather lose [a] war to help with [an] election.
Hmmmm ..... interesting theory, I reckon. Floats about as well as Republicans choosing to occupy Iraq because a short war doesn't guarantee a reelection for a Bush, I guess. But then, I'm just not that much into manic-depressive, paranoid, mission accomplished/stay the course, if it don't work out we got a back-up scapegoat plan ready for political hype at the expense of the nation/world type of reasoning . :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm ..... interesting theory, I reckon. Floats about as well as Republicans choosing to occupy Iraq because a short war doesn't guarantee a reelection for a Bush, I guess. But then, I'm just not that much into manic-depressive, paranoid, mission accomplished/stay the course, if it don't work out we got a back-up scapegoat plan ready for political hype at the expense of the nation/world type of reasoning . :aok
Yea if the war fails blame it on the Democrats, because they wanted to pull out and didn't support the war, or so the Repubs like to claim. If it goes well then it's of course it's because of the Republicans and staying the course to the end was whart made it happen. Damn those Dem's we told them..
How about, Bush and co has finally after what 5 years, put together a plan that has been suggested since the start of the war. Now that it's pretty much do or die for the Republicans with the Iraq problem. Finally Bush and co decided to do what the Generals had told him to do since day one. Hey big suprise maybe our Generals know what they are talking about.
Lucky for them it came about the same time that the Iraqi's decided it was better to work together than try to kill each other, at least for the most part.
-
Originally posted by crockett
How about, Bush and co has finally after what 5 years, put together a plan that has been suggested since the start of the war. Now that it's pretty much do or die for the Republicans with the Iraq problem. Finally Bush and co decided to do what the Generals had told him to do since day one. Hey big suprise maybe our Generals know what they are talking about.
Lucky for them it came about the same time that the Iraqi's decided it was better to work together than try to kill each other, at least for the most part.
Much more believable than the Dago "theorem." I'm so glad the Bush administration was able to try everything else first to make sure it was a feasible plan. And hey, timing is everything. No better way to support the troops. :aok
-
I think in Iraq it is more of a case of the "haves" and the "have nots" finally realising that even though there roles changed, they run the risk of all being "have nots" if they continue to support an insurgency that is being mainly sponsored by foreign extremists. The Sunni's and Shi'tes seem to finally realise that they all stand to gain with the end of the insurgency and the resumption of rebuilding the country.
Add to that, Patreus is using a strategy that should have been implemented from the get go, but certain military leaders and political leaders emphasised a different strategy, and you are seeing the Iraqi's realise that we are actually there to help.
-
Some of the problems occuring in the war can be blamed on the democrats. Clintonin particular. His cutting of Military funding and programs left our military in a position where it was not able to be as effective as it should be.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Some of the problems occuring in the war can be blamed on the democrats. Clinton in particular. His cutting of Military funding and programs left our military in a position where it was not able to be as effective as it should be.
A stretch Military.com didn't concur with:
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,92653,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Author of the piece is Joe Galloway, the combat reporter and script co-writer (with Gen. Harold G. Moore) of "We Were Soldiers Once ... And Young" btw. A lot of dedicated Bushophiles discount him based on his low regard for the Bush administration's poorly planned and mismanaged invasion of Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
Following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U.S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98). The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. Gordon and Trainor wrote:
As [General] Newbold outlined the plan … it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared, the "product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military."
* *
[T]he Plan . . . reflected long-standing military principles about the force levels that were needed to defeat Iraq, control a population of more than 24 million, and secure a nation the size of California with porous borders. Rumsfeld's numbers, in contrast, seemed to be pulled out of thin air. He had dismissed one of the military's long-standing plans, and suggested his own force level without any of the generals raising a cautionary flag.
Id.Gordon, Michael R. and Bernard E. Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq], 2006. Book excerpt from the Denver Post
In Rumsfeld's final television interview as Secretary of Defense, he responded to a question by Brit Hume as to whether he pressed General Tommy Franks to lower his request for 400,000 troops for the Iraq War by stating:
“ Absolutely not. That's a mythology [sic]. This town is filled with this kind of nonsense. The people who decide the levels of forces on the ground are not the Secretary of Defense or the President. We hear recommendations but the recommendations are made by the combatant commanders and by members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and there hasn't been a minute in the last six years when we have not had the number of troops that the combatant commanders have requested.[32] ”
Rumsfeld told Hume that Franks ultimately decided against such a troop level. By 2007 it had become commonly accepted amongst Army leadership that the war in Iraq had been initiated with too few troops. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/us/13cnd-army.html?pagewanted=1&hp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fingers pointed at the Clinton military cut-backs are pretty weak by comparison.
I just love political partisanship damage-control reasoning. I'm thinking it's the "Calgon, take me away" approach to reality. :D
-
Rumsfeld screwed the pooch with extreme prejudice. Bush screwed the pooch by screwing the screwed pooch. Thankfully it appears that Bush has made the best of a truly bad situation with the appointment of Petraeus. Lets hope things continue to stabilize in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Much more believable than the Dago "theorem." I'm so glad the Bush administration was able to try everything else first to make sure it was a feasible plan. And hey, timing is everything. No better way to support the troops. :aok
Timing IS Everything... ask the 4000 American and upwards of 900,000 Iraqis that have already died... oh wait, you can't.
Iraq, as an entity, cannot exist anymore. All three groups involved there have different agendas and no uniting principle between them. All the surge has done is stress our already overwhelmed military, and proven that Iraqis really don't want what we brought them... Freedom. Their leadership, appointed by the US, supported by the US... isn't going to work there, no more than a leaderhip here in the 1770's, appointed by France would have. They, as a nation must choose what destiny is theirs. Nation building doesn't work.... it's been proven time and again through history.
This "war", when it wasn't a war to begin with, was a failed enterprise that had good intentions to begin, but it will not play out the way we would like it to. Bush is just playing out the clock now, to hand off a failed policy to the next in line. I hope none of your friends and family are there now... I only have one friend left there, out of four who deployed..three made the ultimate sacrifice.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Some of the problems occuring in the war can be blamed on the democrats. Clintonin particular. His cutting of Military funding and programs left our military in a position where it was not able to be as effective as it should be.
Kind of interesting opinion, considering Clinton was overshadowed by a republican DOMINATED congress. You have no clue.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Lucky for them it came about the same time that the Iraqi's decided it was better to work together than try to kill each other, at least for the most part.
There's not many left to kill.
-
There are less bad guys in the world and we got to kill them far far from home.
Sure... I wish that we had not made so many mistakes at first. But no, I don't think the democrats "cut and run" plan was the answer..
it was the worst plan of the war so far. We should be glad that they didn't get their way.
lazs
-
Originally posted by bj229r
'THEY', being AlQueda---What isn't touched on much is that they made Iraq their Alamo, and they have lost---Sunnis tand the Sh word that filter stops you from typing, have united in their utter hatred of these aholes
... and the Alamo is famous for being a successful last stand? :huh
-
I think he meant that the actual fight is akin to the alamo.. but... unlike the alamo.... it isn't going to have the inspiration of the alamo.. the troops won't come to avenge it.
The real nut jobs are decimated and hurting.
lazs
-
Want Real news about Iraq, Simply read
http://estripes.osd.mil/ and click on middle east edition.
or also see http://www.debka.org there you will find stories before they break on the news.
CNN doesnt cover what the stars and stripes covers, nor does it cover what debka.org covers.
As for me. I have been in Talil Iraq for the past 6 months and am midway through my tour of duty there.
We are working 7 days a week, and run covoys where we still have IED's or roadside bombs, and still get sniper and mortar fire occasionally, however in southern iraq it is alot better than northern iraq.
However also one aspect to look at is IRAN and its part in the war in iraq. Most of all of the insurgents are led by Iranian Republican Guard and have also been on our hitlist, however we do nothing about it. No ultimatums, no bombing campaign, or invasion of IRAN.
If we are to keep Iraq and Afghanistan, we are going to have to have IRAN back out, or bomb them until they do.
We are never going to leave IRAQ, or Afghanistan, and never are going to leave the middle east, the interest of oil, and other things that are keeping us there and are vital to our economy as well as the worlds economy will not allow us to leave. As we have an interest in that region.
-
We are never going to leave IRAQ, or Afghanistan, and never are going to leave the middle east, the interest of oil, and other things that are keeping us there and are vital to our economy as well as the worlds economy will not allow us to leave. As we have an interest in that region.
====
Tell that to Grand Poo-ba Pelosi and her wild eyed band of liberal misfits.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Timing IS Everything... ask the 4000 American and upwards of 900,000 Iraqis that have already died... oh wait, you can't.
I'm thinking you're thinking my post was genuine praise. :)
-
Originally posted by indy007
... and the Alamo is famous for being a successful last stand? :huh
Yup. Wan't a very good choice of comparison on BJ's part. :huh
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Tell that to Grand Poo-ba Pelosi and her wild eyed band of liberal misfits.
Pelosi is a liar. As are almost all politicians. She is just kowtowing the Democratic line to help win the election. If the Democrats win, we will still be involved in Iraq and Afganistan albeit with less troops.
They all know we can not cut tail and run as Iran will take over the whole of Iraq, but they never admit it.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm ..... interesting theory, I reckon. Floats about as well as Republicans choosing to occupy Iraq because a short war doesn't guarantee a reelection for a Bush, I guess. But then, I'm just not that much into manic-depressive, paranoid, mission accomplished/stay the course, if it don't work out we got a back-up scapegoat plan ready for political hype at the expense of the nation/world type of reasoning . :aok
It's not a theory. The democrats have come out and specifically said that it is bad for them for the war to go well.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's not a theory. The democrats have come out and specifically said that it is bad for them for the war to go well.
The reason you have no source to back this up is .... ? :)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Pelosi is a liar. As are almost all politicians. She is just kowtowing the Democratic line to help win the election. If the Democrats win, we will still be involved in Iraq and Afganistan albeit with less troops.
They all know we can not cut tail and run as Iran will take over the whole of Iraq, but they never admit it.
"They" admitted exactly that during the democratic debates. "They" often say and do things much differently than Rush or Hannity or the other idiot pundits say "they" do.
The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000458/
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The reason you have no source to back this up is .... ? :)
link (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/29/good_news_but_not_for_democrats/)
For most Americans, positive developments in Iraq are very welcome. But good news is bad news for the Democratic left, where opposition to the war has become an emotional investment in defeat. House majority whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would think if Petraeus reports next month that the war is going well. "That would be a real big problem for us," Clyburn candidly replied.
The intensity of the left's determination to abandon Iraq was reflected in the reaction to a single line in Hillary Clinton's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week. "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq," she said, referring to the surge, "and in some areas, particularly al-Anbar province, it's working."
That mild comment instantly drew fire from Clinton's Democratic rivals. John Edwards's campaign manager, David Bonior, warned her against "undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war." New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, another presidential hopeful, piled on: "The surge is not working. I do not give President Bush the same credit on Iraq that Hillary does." When Barack Obama addressed the VFW one day later, he stuck to the defeatists' script. "Obama Sees a 'Complete Failure' in Iraq," The New York Times headlined its report on Aug. 22.
Within 48 hours, Clinton was scurrying to toe the all-is-lost line once again: "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution. It has failed. . . . We need to . . . start getting out now."
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Where is that quote from? I completely empathize with the author.
Ever since I started drinking coffee (maybe 10 years now...I'm somewhat young), I've had my blood pressure raised about 10 points from standing in line behind some yupster coffee drinking poser ordering a 2000 calorie coffee drink when all I want is a freaking "small to go". People like this would be much better served by just going to Ben & Jerry's or Dairy Queen and getting some coffee powder sprinkled in their milkshake.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack... carry on
Took me a bit to remember...was a Mark Steyn column that was posted in National Review, I think (lol the guy is Canadian, but has an interesting take on all things American)
link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQwZTI2NDE0OTg4YWQ5NzZjOWRjNjg5NThjOGEyM2Q=)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
link (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/29/good_news_but_not_for_democrats/)
*cough cough* The opinion piece didn't even try to back LS's assertion.
Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
This is not "the Democrats want to lose the war to win votes."
Back to the drawing board, hyperbole. Though I'm sure LS at least appreciates your effort when he was at a loss to provide anything, whatsoever. ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
*cough cough* The opinion piece didn't even try to back LS's assertion. Not even a quote remotely resembling it. Back to the drawing board, hyperbole. ;) :aok
The OPINION piece points to this article
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html)
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.
I made a thread about some REAL, VERIFIABLE good news in Iraq, and it's back to the same tired cliches the Move-On crowd has been putting up for 4 years. Just accept a LITTLE BIT of good news for ONCE for what it is. Tomorrow you may go back to your regularly-scheduled Iraq-sucks-it's-a-quagmire-Vietnam-blood-for-oil-Rummy-screwed-the-pooch-bush-is-an-idiot-Cheney-halliburton-trying-make-money-no-wmd-Iraq-can't-exist-fake-country-US-imperialistic-neocon.....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So the enemy that wasn't there before we invaded is now being swept from the country by people fed up with the interlopers. I'm glad things are going well. But calling this a victory or even the start of one is like breaking a dish while cooking dinner and then declaring dinner ready when the shards are cleaned up.
Try to stay engaged in the actual conversation without making up stuff that doesn't exist in the conversation.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The OPINION piece points to this article
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380_pf.html)
The article I quoted? Not understanding the "real problem" is the desire to bring the boys home, which is what brought about the mid-term election results (whether it takes a year or two or more) and not a complaint over winning votes? Go figure. Cause "tired cliche" only applies to the other guy. Try again. Please try again. Hyperbole amuses me. ;)
p.s. Dago offers a free course in remedial reading. I'd take him up on it while he's feelin' generous.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The article I quoted? Not understanding the "real problem" is the desire to bring the boys home, which is what brought about the mid-term election results (whether it takes a year or two or more) and not a complaint over winning votes? Go figure. Try again. Please try again. Hyperbole amuses me. ;)
Obviously, the Dems want us out, irregardless of the conditions, which is certainly their right, but Clyburn actually came out and stated that good news in the Petraeus report would be "a real big problem for us."-- towards reaching the afore-mentioned goal of 'redeploying' out of Iraq. Even in the context of good news foiling their 'exit' strategy, it doesn't look good to passers-by
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Obviously, the Dems want us out, irregardless of the conditions, which is certainly their right, but Clyburn actually came out and stated that good news in the Petraeus report would be "a real big problem for us."-- towards reaching the afore-mentioned goal of 'redeploying' out of Iraq. Even in the context of good news foiling their 'exit' strategy, it doesn't look good to passers-by
"Irregardless of the conditions" .... "actually came out and stated" ....
..... not what LS claimed. Tired cliche. Remedial reading. Dago. Remember. :)
-
It is what I claimed. But now you're just reeling from being proven wrong again. Do you even start to feel bad from being embarrassed time and time again?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It is what I claimed. But now you're just reeling from being proven wrong again. Do you even start to feel bad from being embarrassed time and time again?
Sorry, LS, you puffing out your chest and doing the knock-kneed strut over being proud of not understanding an article isn't much for me to be embarrassed about. I've just taken to accepting you as you are. :D
-
Originally posted by Dago
Try to stay engaged in the actual conversation without making up stuff that doesn't exist in the conversation.
I'm sorry. Did you want me to use smaller words?
-
Originally posted by LTCClark
Want Real news about Iraq, Simply read
http://estripes.osd.mil/ and click on middle east edition.
or also see http://www.debka.org there you will find stories before they break on the news.
CNN doesnt cover what the stars and stripes covers, nor does it cover what debka.org covers.
As for me. I have been in Talil Iraq for the past 6 months and am midway through my tour of duty there.
We are working 7 days a week, and run covoys where we still have IED's or roadside bombs, and still get sniper and mortar fire occasionally, however in southern iraq it is alot better than northern iraq.
However also one aspect to look at is IRAN and its part in the war in iraq. Most of all of the insurgents are led by Iranian Republican Guard and have also been on our hitlist, however we do nothing about it. No ultimatums, no bombing campaign, or invasion of IRAN.
If we are to keep Iraq and Afghanistan, we are going to have to have IRAN back out, or bomb them until they do.
We are never going to leave IRAQ, or Afghanistan, and never are going to leave the middle east, the interest of oil, and other things that are keeping us there and are vital to our economy as well as the worlds economy will not allow us to leave. As we have an interest in that region.
I've always said Iran should have been the target. We should have never invaded Iraq, it should have always been Iran. However I'd never support another war under Bush and co.
The problem is, Iraq has over stressed our military and we are no longer in a good position to attack Iran. If we needed too.
Bush and co made the biggest mistake I can even think of with Iraq. Saddam was contained and he was going no where. The Bush doctrine thought that by attacking Iraq it would make Iran behave. Any moron should have seen that wasn't gonna happen.
We should have hit Iran just like we hit Iraq in DS1 then put blockades on them for the next 10 years. Now it's really too late to actually do anything with Iran as Bush and co has totally screwed up the chance we had.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I've always said Iran should have been the target. We should have never invaded Iraq, it should have always been Iran. However I'd never support another war under Bush and co.
The problem is, Iraq has over stressed our military and we are no longer in a good position to attack Iran. If we needed too.
Bush and co made the biggest mistake I can even think of with Iraq. Saddam was contained and he was going no where. The Bush doctrine thought that by attacking Iraq it would make Iran behave. Any moron should have seen that wasn't gonna happen.
We should have hit Iran just like we hit Iraq in DS1 then put blockades on them for the next 10 years. Now it's really too late to actually do anything with Iran as Bush and co has totally screwed up the chance we had.
And what would've been the reasoning behind hitting Iran instead of Iraq?
It seems the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapon program in 2003 - and with no Iraq invasion, the Iranians could never then support the Iraqi insurgency
Tronsky