the surge is working!

[Zoots]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Too much ignorance for me, I'm outta here.

I wanna stop reading too. But it's like a train wreck, not able to look away!

[struckpx]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar




Too much ignorance for me, I'm outta here.

This is the thing that pisses me off about you. If it isn't liberal, its wrong.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by struckpx


Well, tell me anywhere other than Israel, in the Middle East where it isn't that way??

Sistani is pro-US, anti al-Sadr, and very moderate. He does not preach the idea of fanatacism as well.

Islam is by definition fanatacism, it looks to a future where every human is in submission to Allah, he is not pro-USA he is pro-Allah, he keeps outside from matters of government which is wise since when the government fucks up who else do the people turn to, he preaches moderation but only as far as it benefits him.

I am not going to make apologies for retrogressive superstition, religion is not a beautiful thing and watching Sunni terrorists slaughter Shiites for being heretical and worthy of death followed by a Shiite squad massacre a Sunni household only reinforces it.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by struckpx


This is the thing that pisses me off about you. If it isn't liberal, its wrong.

Define liberal please? Is it love of liberty - to support individualism, secularism and freedom. To oppose encroachments upon liberty?

If it defined as the nature and size of state intrusion then I hope that you oppose censorship and surveilance because that is just as intrusive as any liberal policy out there.

[Tiger Edge]

Originally posted by struckpx


And stop bringing up my age. I am 68.

On Mercury?

[BVS]

Originally posted by struckpx


This is the thing that pisses me off about you. If it isn't liberal, its wrong.

So, for all of you to sit around here and defend him is outrageous.

Show me how this statement is anything but ignorance.

I dare you.

It's not conservative or liberal, it's just pure bullshit.

So be pissed off all you want, but you've been shown time after time after time by people on all sides that your facts are wrong. But when you start accusing people of defending Saddam, you cross the line. I guess you just realized you don't have anything to stand on.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by struckpx


There's a difference between someone who had knowingly killed hundreds of thousands of his own, and then you or me. Don't compare the two.

I will compare the two when it exposes your fallacy because Saddam commited more than enough documented crimes to make the case without inventing imaginary ones, a world with Saddam actually needing to rearm to back up his rhetoric against an ascendant nuclear neighbour (Iran began it's nuclear activities before 2003) is a frightening thought - why not make a case based on that scenario, it may be moot but at least it is more plausible than your example.

Saddam wouldn't back Al Qaeda in 2001/2002 unless it was in the interests of preserving the regime and he had a guarantee to prevent a US response (e.g. a nuclear option) - thats the difference. Comparing Al Qaeda to the PLO is different because one can actually be appeased and the other cannot, the ideology of Al Qaeda is not limited to a single group (look at the peaceful fascistic Hizb ut Tahir) and can only end when young men aren't drawn to such organisations.

[struckpx]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Islam is by definition fanatacism, it looks to a future where every human is in submission to Allah, he is not pro-USA he is pro-Allah, he keeps outside from matters of government which is wise since when the government fucks up who else do the people turn to, he preaches moderation but only as far as it benefits him.

I am not going to make apologies for retrogressive superstition, religion is not a beautiful thing and watching Sunni terrorists slaughter Shiites for being heretical and worthy of death followed by a Shiite squad massacre a Sunni household only reinforces it.

What is true, is that he is against Iran's Ayatollah. This is a great man who has great respect from his people, and hopefully, will ultimately outdo people like al-sadr who call for military violence along with religion.

The fact of the matter is, is that you can't expect Iraq to become pro-social rights all of a sudden, that is not plausible. The democratically-elected government has been enough of a challenge. It is moving forward, slowly but surely, and security is the number one concern that needs to be addressed before anything else can go on. Once that is in place, education and other things can happen to enlighten society.

[Diemen]

You must be Sting2's son.

[A_Wanderer]

Yeah but your not going forward are you, it's the fact that many of these social indicators are going backwards. The flight of the Iraqi middle class is a huge issue, it shifts the demographics in a very bad way and no matter how much wooing you have for immediate security it eliminates the possibility for a peaceful unified Iraq to emerge.

The short sightedness in looking to back religious leaders as a tool of social control is staggering, especially at the same time Iraqi trade unions are getting royally fucked over by the state, that isn't freedom it is bordering on clerical fascism (religious leaders controlling a state which exists for the sole purpose of ensuring business runs smoothly).

[struckpx]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Yeah but your not going forward are you, it's the fact that many of these social indicators are going backwards. The flight of the Iraqi middle class is a huge issue, it shifts the demographics in a very bad way and no matter how much wooing you have for immediate security it eliminates the possibility for a peaceful unified Iraq to emerge.

The short sightedness in looking to back religious leaders as a tool of social control is staggering, especially at the same time Iraqi trade unions are getting royally fucked over by the state, that isn't freedom it is bordering on clerical fascism (religious leaders controlling a state which exists for the sole purpose of ensuring business runs smoothly).

Iraq has one thing going for itself, oil. That is what all of its energy must be put towards, for that is where most of its revenues and jobs will amount from.

[anitram]

Originally posted by struckpx


Iraq has one thing going for itself, oil.

The oil's gonna pay for the war.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by struckpx


Iraq has one thing going for itself, oil. That is what all of its energy must be put towards, for that is where most of its revenues and jobs will amount from.

And here we are in 2005, the elected Iraq government just ratified an oil accord with an oil trust that gives every citizen a stake in the country, the sheiks in Anbar province have unanimously rejected al Zarqawi and AQ in Iraq and the Golden Mosque still has a dome and all thanks to the success in rebuilding Iraqs oil infrastructure and investing enough material support and protection during that critical phase between the invasion and 2004 before the insurgency could become entrenched.

You want oil then buy it from Saddam, he was willing to sell and it is obvious that everyone in the world was willing to buy.

[anitram]

A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

Heckuva job!

[struckpx]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And here we are in 2005, the elected Iraq government just ratified an oil accord with an oil trust that gives every citizen a stake in the country, the sheiks in Anbar province have unanimously rejected al Zarqawi and AQ in Iraq and the Golden Mosque still has a dome and all thanks to the success in rebuilding Iraqs oil infrastructure and investing enough material support and protection during that critical phase between the invasion and 2004 before the insurgency could become entrenched.

You want oil then buy it from Saddam, he was willing to sell and it is obvious that everyone in the world was willing to buy.

So you would rather have Saddam Hussein alive??

I would rather have it like today than have a madman controlling that territory. Slowly, things are being rebuilt. It takes a long time when the security isn't in all areas yet. We will see how this new surge of troops does. it has done great things so far.

[Irvine511]

didn't you people read the article!?!?!

we just need to give time for the surge to work. STING2 has said, repeatedly, that it takes 10 years for a counterinsurgency to work.

just look at Afghanistan in the 1980s. the Soviets occuped a Mulsim country of 20m people and maintained a force between 80-100,000 people, and managed to lose 14,000, but they were only there for nine years. see? if they had the balls to stick it out for just one more year ... because nothing major happened to the soviet union in 1990, did it? the country didn't totally collapse, did it?

[struckpx]

Originally posted by Irvine511
didn't you people read the article!?!?!

we just need to give time for the surge to work. STING2 has said, repeatedly, that it takes 10 years for a counterinsurgency to work.

i agree. more time needs to be given to let the government in iraq mature.

[A_Wanderer]

As I am telling you I support the removal of Saddam with force, it was the right thing to do but you can't brush over the arrogance and failures post-bellum. At this stage the American people have decided that it isn't worth staying in Iraq, they rightly don't think that more lives should be spent to pursue vague policy that jumps to different justifications to mask the actual goal (oil security) and certainly not under this administration. Pouring lives in ad infinitum without any justification other than perpetuating the very situation that is costing lives is bad policy, and by their own standards they have failed to acheive their goals.

The rebuilding process has been rooted, things were accomplished early on but those gains were lost (look at the statistics on schools, hospitals and infrastructure projects that were built/rebuilt after the wars and sanctions only to have fallen back into a decrepit state).

The actual gains being made in central Iraq today are going to be wasted because the political winds have shifted, it isn't a stolen victory because that political capital (and so many lives) were squandered in a four year waste of time. Oil security is lost, Iraqi lives and a whole other generation will be lost (generations raised on fascism and war do not a stable situation make) - it's as if one could pick the worst outcomes of all scenarios and put them in one.

[Diemen]

(meant for the Irvine, struck double whammy)

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Irvine511
didn't you people read the article!?!?!

we just need to give time for the surge to work. STING2 has said, repeatedly, that it takes 10 years for a counterinsurgency to work.

just look at Afghanistan in the 1980s. the Soviets occuped a Mulsim country of 20m people and maintained a force between 80-100,000 people, and managed to lose 14,000, but they were only there for nine years. see? if they had the balls to stick it out for just one more year ... because nothing major happened to the soviet union in 1990, did it? the country didn't totally collapse, did it?

I see you agree with Bin Laden now, how very convenient.