A victory for the terrorists?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:08 pm

Two headlines this morning, sort of interesting in juxtaposition:

Top Democrats Want to Begin Iraq Pullout

Democrats poised to take control of Congress said Sunday that they would press to begin a phased US militray withdrawal from Iraq within four to six months, part of an agenda aimed at overhauling key aspects of US policy in the Middle East.

Senior White House officials countered that setting timetables for US troop withdrawals would "weaken the Iraq government" and "embolden insurgents". White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten indicated that the President would block legislation calling for scheduled withdrawal. "I don't think we're going to be receptive to the notion there's a fixed timetable at which we automatically pull out, because that would be a true disaster for the Iraqi people," Bolten said on ABC's "This Week".

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines

Iraqi Premier Vows Political Shakeup

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki scolded lawmakers Sunday for putting sectarian concerns over national interests and promised sweeping Cabinet changes after complaints that his unity government has been ineffective at containing violence.

Maliki later told journalists that he had authorized the use of "extreme force" against private militias blamed for the growing bloodshed between Iraq's dominant Muslim sects, including the deaths of hearly 100 people in 24 hours.

"There cannot be a government and militias together. One of the two should rule," Maliki said in a session Sunday with Iraqi newspaper editors broadcast on national television. "I personally will not be in a government based on militias."

It was unusually tough language for a leader widely criticized as failing to stand up to key members of his governing Shiite coalition, some of whom are backed by militias blamed for nightly killing rampages against the Sunni Arab minority.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... ines-world

------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm...a phased withdrawal would be a "true disaster for the Iraqi people"? I guess that means that they're not in the middle of a true disaster right now?

They've had their "democracy" for some time now and this "democracy" has done basically nothing to control the violence on their own. In fact they have taken steps to prevent the US forces from cracking down on the militias. Could it be that now Maliki sees the writing on the wall and that they actually need to do something on their own? Interesting timing for this decision. He finally realizes that their sugar daddy won't be around forever and they'd better get their collective asses in gear.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:25 pm

So, it's an imagined disaster, or not a disaster at all?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:38 pm

I'm still not convinced that a muzzie vs muzzie civil war would be such a bad thingie.

What, it might spread throughout the whole middle east? And that would be bad because???

Muzzies wiping out muzzies only means fewer of them for us to wipe out when the time comes- as it inevitably will- for us to do so

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:45 pm

You gonna go and protect all the oil pumping infrastructure in SA while the Sunnis and the Shitheads are fighting each other?
How high do you think your gas price will go if that shit starts happening?

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:16 pm

mvscal wrote:You're the ones who wanted to leave. Well...we're leaving.

I missed the part where we held a referendum on immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:30 pm

In other words, you're melting (still) from the plungering received by the Republicans, and are trying to paint what happened as representing something other than what it is.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:49 pm

mvscal wrote:You're the ones who wanted to leave. Well...we're leaving.

Fine with me.

Do you think that the "muzzie vs. muzzie" civil war will spread throughout the Middle East, which cuddles suggests might be a "good" thing?
I seriously doubt it, but if the SA oilfields were ever in serious danger I don't think there would be too much opposition to getting involved there.

Eaglebauer · Post by **Eaglebauer** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:54 pm

mvscal wrote:No, in other words, you are too fucking stupid to read the first sentence of the first article posted on this thread.

Well actually you were saying the identical thing before this article was posted.

And you were wrong then, too.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:46 pm

mvscal wrote:No, in other words, you are too fucking stupid to read the first sentence of the first article posted on this thread.

apparently you forgot to read the second paragraph.......

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:03 am

When Bubba was on Meet The Press(?) a few months back, he agreed with the notion that setting a timeline for withdrawl would be a disaster(not the world's biggest Bubba fan, but when a guy who is essentially a "political enemy" of the current leadership agrees with them, there must be something to it).

He basically explained that if you start setting dates, it gives the insurgents incentive to lay in wait, and use the time to regroup. If the timeline looks open-ended, it goes a lot farther to get the disagreeing parties involved in the political arena, rather than try to fight a losing battle. He stressed allowing all parties to be allowed to participate in the political process, rather than awaiting a day when the Americans leave.

Made sense to me.

On the other side of the coin, there has to be a withdrawl sooner or later. My preference would be a very, very slow but steady troop reduction, carried out as quickly as Iraqi security allows. But at poresent, Iraqi security forces are a joke, so before there can be any meaningful discussion of withdrawl, we(Americans and Iraqis) need to formulate a much better strategy to provide for security for the government and the (innocent...both of them) civilians.

I was opposed to going in to Iraq, and I'm opposed to withdrawing before there's at least a scrap of stability in the government. We owe those people at least that much. But I'm also opposed to an indefinite timeline...at some point, it's out of our hands. But that point isn't tomorrow.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:15 am

Dinsdale wrote:When Bubba was on Meet The Press(?) a few months back, he agreed with the notion that setting a timeline for withdrawl would be a disaster(not the world's biggest Bubba fan, but when a guy who is essentially a "political enemy" of the current leadership agrees with them, there must be something to it).

He basically explained that if you start setting dates, it gives the insurgents incentive to lay in wait, and use the time to regroup. If the timeline looks open-ended, it goes a lot farther to get the disagreeing parties involved in the political arena, rather than try to fight a losing battle. He stressed allowing all parties to be allowed to participate in the political process, rather than awaiting a day when the Americans leave.

Made sense to me.

On the other side of the coin, there has to be a withdrawl sooner or later. My preference would be a very, very slow but steady troop reduction, carried out as quickly as Iraqi security allows. But at poresent, Iraqi security forces are a joke, so before there can be any meaningful discussion of withdrawl, we(Americans and Iraqis) need to formulate a much better strategy to provide for security for the government and the (innocent...both of them) civilians.

I was opposed to going in to Iraq, and I'm opposed to withdrawing before there's at least a scrap of stability in the government. We owe those people at least that much. But I'm also opposed to an indefinite timeline...at some point, it's out of our hands. But that point isn't tomorrow.

Nice fence sitting post there, son. You waiting for somebody like mvscal to come and help you over?

As long as we're there indefinitely the Iraqis have no incentive to solve their own problems. As long as we stay they'll never make an effort to solve stop their own people killing each other. Seen any progress there in the last, oh, three years? Even since the elected their own government?

This announcement by Maliki that they are finally going to do something to crack down on the sectarian militias (which are in a large part commanded by members of the goverment itself) came right after an election here that made it clear that we may not be there indefinitely.

Coincidence? I think not.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:27 am

mvscal wrote:
So, you agree with the administration then? Stay the course, right?

If by "stay the course," you mean "make sure every single move is carried out with flagrant disregard for common sense, and all decisions must be based upon making Halliburton and other large GOP/Rove Party supportews wealthier," then....no.

For starters, how about we (without help from Halliburton, thank you), get the oil fields producing at a high level, and spend more of our military resources defending that infrastructure. Although I can't say for certain, I'm guessing if we...I won't say "concentrated" out troops....but if we focused on this, which would ultimately benefit the Iraqis, it would draw out those who seek to disrupt Iraq. This is of course based upon the assumption that the "terrorists" are smart enough to know that if this happened, they'd have to disrupt the oil infrastructure in order to disrupt the other aspects of the country. Which in theory makes them easy pickens'.

Might even make it to where there's less fighting in the cities, and more in slightly more remote areas, thereby saving civilian lives(sounds good on paper, anyway).

But...there's a reason why I'm not the Secratary of Defense...same reason Rummy isn't SoD anymore...not qualified.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:48 am

mvscal wrote: So, you agree with the administration then? Stay the course, right?

the two are not mutually exclusive....as others have pointed out it would be a disaster to leave Iraq right now.....it would ultimately become a haven for terrorists if it continues on it's current path.....

so yes, we need to stay.... but as you yourself have pointed out..... if the Iraqi's themselves aren't willing to fight for it..

I'm not sure I see a resolution to that......

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 am

As long as we're there indefinitely the Iraqis have no incentive to solve their own problems.

exactly.

Not so shocking that what is listed in article #2 happened so soon after the election. The leaders in iraq are finally seeing the writing on the wall and realize they DO have a timeline now. Without evidence of any progress towards stopping the sectarian bullshit, they know the dems will act to pull the troops out quicker and leave them in deep shit.

This perceived threat may be the best thing that could happen over there.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:34 pm

Dinsdale wrote:same reason Rummy isn't SoD anymore...not qualified.

Yea, I don't think Rummy's chops are cut out for SOD.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:32 pm

mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:Do you think that the "muzzie vs. muzzie" civil war will spread throughout the Middle East, which cuddles suggests might be a "good" thing?
It is absolutely possible. There is not a single nation in the region that is not threatened by violent Islamist minorities. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Yemen....Britain, France. You name it.

They're already fighting in Somalia (our next stop in the WoT most likely) and the shit in Sudan is spreading into Chad which just declared a state of emergency.

Good thing? No.

That's why it has to spread to the whole region. The Shiite's's time & æfforts will be totally occupied fighting the Sunnis's and vice versa. Maybe a shit load of oil wells will be unavailable, but that's going to happen at some point anyway so it shouldn't factor into whether or not muzzie v muzzie is good for the world.

The End Game, as I see it is that eventually- certainly in the next 5 years, muzzies will hit the Euros HARD, probably harder than they hit us on 9/11. Maybe the Euros get hit a number of times. The Euros will be incapable of an adequate response but except for the French, they'll be unwilling to surrender. They'll hit the Russians too. The muzzies may or may not try to hit Israel. I tend to think they won't because they know the Jews will use their nukes if they have to. The muzzies will also hit us hard again here- again, probably harder than on 9/11, and probably multiple times; one because they're determined to do it, and two, because they have no reason to believe we'll respond adequately any more than the Euros will. They'll be wrong. We'll use nukes- lots of them, in lots of places and Islam will become as widely practiced as Druidism. And life is gonna pretty much suck to one degree or another for whoever is left alive

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:01 pm

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:as others have pointed out it would be a disaster to leave Iraq right now.....
...for Iraqis.

and ultimately for us as well........

but the question still remains--how do you motivate the Iraqis to fight for their own welfare........

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:06 pm

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:but the question still remains--how do you motivate the Iraqis to fight for their own welfare........
We can't. It up to them. All we can do is give them the opportunity which we did by removing Saddam.

which is exactly why the American people have had enough of Iraq.......

if they won't fight for themselves, why the fuck should we be fighting and dying for them........

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:51 pm

Key word being IMMEDIATE

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:39 pm

Cuda wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Mikey wrote:Do you think that the "muzzie vs. muzzie" civil war will spread throughout the Middle East, which cuddles suggests might be a "good" thing?
It is absolutely possible. There is not a single nation in the region that is not threatened by violent Islamist minorities. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Yemen....Britain, France. You name it.

They're already fighting in Somalia (our next stop in the WoT most likely) and the shit in Sudan is spreading into Chad which just declared a state of emergency.

Good thing? No.
That's why it has to spread to the whole region. The Shiite's's time & æfforts will be totally occupied fighting the Sunnis's and vice versa. Maybe a shit load of oil wells will be unavailable, but that's going to happen at some point anyway so it shouldn't factor into whether or not muzzie v muzzie is good for the world.

The End Game, as I see it is that eventually- certainly in the next 5 years, muzzies will hit the Euros HARD, probably harder than they hit us on 9/11. Maybe the Euros get hit a number of times. The Euros will be incapable of an adequate response but except for the French, they'll be unwilling to surrender. They'll hit the Russians too. The muzzies may or may not try to hit Israel. I tend to think they won't because they know the Jews will use their nukes if they have to. The muzzies will also hit us hard again here- again, probably harder than on 9/11, and probably multiple times; one because they're determined to do it, and two, because they have no reason to believe we'll respond adequately any more than the Euros will. They'll be wrong. We'll use nukes- lots of them, in lots of places and Islam will become as widely practiced as Druidism. And life is gonna pretty much suck to one degree or another for whoever is left alive

What are you wasting your time here for?

You should be writing comic books.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:55 pm

Felix wrote: which is exactly why the American people have had enough of Iraq.......

Americans have had enough of Iraq because they're losing.

You wouldn't hear a single squeaking fart about this if GI's weren't coming home in Zip-Lock bags on a daily basis, no matter how many Iraqis were dying.

Your country has no nerve. One little trickle of blood down your noses, and you go running for the cover of mom's apron.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:57 pm

Mikey wrote:
Cuda wrote: We'll use nukes- lots of them
What are you wasting your time here for?

You should be writing comic books.

If you buy a copy of Cuda's comic book, Issue#1, and keep it in a plastic sleeve, and protect it from moisture and sunlight,
the price will invariably double in 50 years.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm

Mikey wrote: What are you wasting your time here for?

You should be writing comic books.

Remember how VALVENIS used to wytch photos with MS Paint?

That was much better than I can draw

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:03 pm

Martyred wrote:
Your country has no nerve. One little trickle of blood down your noses, and you go running for the cover of mom's apron.

look douchebag, we get it......you're a fucking no account dwarf that's been reduced to trying to bait people in an effort to get someone....anyone to pay attention to you......

it's worn.......

really.......

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:09 pm

Felix wrote:
Martyred wrote:
Your country has no nerve. One little trickle of blood down your noses, and you go running for the cover of mom's apron.
look douchebag, we get it......you're a fucking no account dwarf that's been reduced to trying to bait people in an effort to get someone....anyone to pay attention to you......

it's worn.......

really.......

Don't get your cunt-hairs in a twist, Missy.
It's not my fault you keep voting for traitors.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:which is exactly why the American people have had enough of Iraq.......

if they won't fight for themselves, why the fuck should we be fighting and dying for them........
And I agree. That's why I called for an immediate withdrawl.

and why exactly have you done such a complete 180?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:52 pm

Unfortunately the best Iraqi fighters are already fighting on the other side.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:21 pm

mvscal wrote: They aren't worthy of us or our sacrifice.

Too fucking bad for you, 'cause the party ain't over yet.

Going so soon? Think again, sucker.

Bush had a little visit the other day to help stiffen his backbone.
Get comfortable.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:24 pm

"I am not coming to the United States to ask America to save Israel,"

HEBREW TRANSLATION:

"Tehran is thatta-way. Chop-chop, dummies."

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:34 am

Martyred wrote:

"I am not coming to the United States to ask America to save Israel,"

HEBREW TRANSLATION:

"Tehran is thatta-way. Chop-chop, dummies."

Actually, the Hebrew translation is: " I AM coming to ask America to save Israel"

I take your side this time, Marty Red. Teh Jews got nukes- USE the fuckers and quit asking somebody else to fight your fucking battles for you. Otherwise, STFU