Is the current surge working? - Page 7

Jaguar b. p. · 07-23-07, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old

Not true. Way too simplistic and sophomoric.

haha Really! In contrast to your country's official assessment
that it's a battle against "da evildoers," and you represent "da goodness".

Quote:

We, and the UN inspectors, knew he had WMDs

What happened was: Bush held speeches mentioning "mushroom clouds,"
implying that Iraq was somehow close to developing an atomic bomb that will be exploded in the U.S.

Then he employed the highly intellectual tactic of mentioning Iraq and AQ in the same sentence 5000 times,
which is of course proof of their brotherly ties.

Then Americans (who've always thought of themselves as somehow better than other people, and who were freshly pissed off about the events of 9/11 where an Arab called Shaykh Osama bin Laden challenged their false claims of supremacy)
decided that this WMD argument was a more than sufficient pretext for killing some Ay-Rabs as payback.

So this mindless bloodlust got you to where you are now: your end.

Quote:

Saddam, through various delaying and obfuscation tactics, refused to facilitate a complete accounting.

When the inspection teams were in, and they found nothing, Washington said Saddam Husayn was "deceiving and not disarming" and that "his job is not to simply let the UN search this country the size of California, but to actively lead them to the stockpiles."

But since we now know there were no stockpiles, it turns out that Husayn was telling the truth, and the U.S. was lying as usual.

SouthernDemocrat · 07-23-07, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldreliable67

The surge is not and was never intended to be a long-term strategy.

Of course it is not a long term strategy, we have neither the troops, the public will, nor the money to keep it up indefinitely. The goal is to provide some short term stability that allows the federal government to make some real moves toward reconciliation.

So, what we are seeing is that yes, in some areas the surge is bringing about greater security, but nothing has been done at the federal level in Iraq, thus, as it is right now, greater levels of security will be maintained while the surge is in force, and when the surge ends, the security situation deteriorates along with it. That could change, but as it is, the political will in Iraq does not seem to exist to facilitate the changes necessary. As I wrote, time will tell.

Iriemon · 07-23-07, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

Of course it is not a long term strategy, we have neither the troops, the public will, nor the money to keep it up indefinitely. The goal is to provide some short term stability that allows the federal government to make some real moves toward reconciliation.

So, what we are seeing is that yes, in some areas the surge is bringing about greater security, but nothing has been done at the federal level in Iraq, thus, as it is right now, greater levels of security will be maintained while the surge is in force, and when the surge ends, the security situation deteriorates along with it. That could change, but as it is, the political will in Iraq does not seem to exist to facilitate the changes necessary. As I wrote, time will tell.

The more cynical view would say that the goal is to continue with reasons and excuses for maintaining a presence in Iraq, so that the results of correcting the fiasco can be blamed on the next president.

oldreliable67 · 07-23-07, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat

Of course it is not a long term strategy, we have neither the troops, the public will, nor the money to keep it up indefinitely. The goal is to provide some short term stability that allows the federal government to make some real moves toward reconciliation.

Agreed. Apparently, I read something into your comment above that you had not intended.

Quote:

So, what we are seeing is that yes, in some areas the surge is bringing about greater security, but nothing has been done at the federal level in Iraq, thus, as it is right now, greater levels of security will be maintained while the surge is in force, and when the surge ends, the security situation deteriorates along with it. That could change, but as it is, the political will in Iraq does not seem to exist to facilitate the changes necessary. As I wrote, time will tell.

An AP story today writes of two US commanders in Iraq who are proposing troop cuts in their areas of operations...

Quote:

In a move that could portend a strategy change, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq said he has proposed reducing his troop levels and shifting next year to missions focused less on direct combat.

Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon told The Associated Press that if current trends hold, he would like to begin this troop reduction and change in mission in Ninevah province, where he said Iraqi army forces already are operating nearly independently. He has proposed shifting the province to Iraqi government control as early as August.

Ninevah's capital is Mosul, the country's third largest city.
[...]
Col. John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, who leads a task force of 6,000 U.S. Soldiers in a section of Anbar province that includes Ramadi, said in an interview Friday that by January he might be ready to take a 25 percent troop cut if the Iraqi police, numbering about 6,000 now, are made stronger by then.
[...]
Mixon acknowledged that a U.S. shift in northern Iraq meant risking recent gains. But he said it would have important political benefits in Baghdad.

"To be perfectly frank with you, it puts the Iraqi central government in a position of having to assume responsibility for the security situation," Mixon said in a telephone interview from his headquarters at Camp Speicher, near the city of Tikrit.

As noted in the story, these reductions would not necessarily mean a reduction in US troops, but could mean shifting several thousand troops to other parts of Iraq. In turn, this could mark the beginning of a move away from the heavy combat role and the first substantial US troop reductions, perhaps in the spring or summer.

Whether or not the Iraqi's will avail themselves of the opportunity to put their house in order and avoid renewed bloodshed when we leave will, as you correctly allude to, only be revealed over time.

oldreliable67 · 07-23-07, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar b. p.

haha Really! In contrast to your country's official assessment
that it's a battle against "da evildoers," and you represent "da goodness".

What happened was: Bush held speeches mentioning "mushroom clouds,"
implying that Iraq was somehow close to developing an atomic bomb that will be exploded in the U.S.

Then he employed the highly intellectual tactic of mentioning Iraq and AQ in the same sentence 5000 times,
which is of course proof of their brotherly ties.

Then Americans (who've always thought of themselves as somehow better than other people, and who were freshly pissed off about the events of 9/11 where an Arab called Shaykh Osama bin Laden challenged their false claims of supremacy)
decided that this WMD argument was a more than sufficient pretext for killing some Ay-Rabs as payback.

So this mindless bloodlust got you to where you are now: your end.

When the inspection teams were in, and they found nothing, Washington said Saddam Husayn was "deceiving and not disarming" and that "his job is not to simply let the UN search this country the size of California, but to actively lead them to the stockpiles."

But since we now know there were no stockpiles, it turns out that Husayn was telling the truth, and the U.S. was lying as usual.

Come on, you can do better than this! This is sophomoric drivel!! Give us some of that radical Muslim/al Qaeda holier-than-thou, 72 virgins, no higher calling than martyrdom stuff! Show us the real Jaguar!

Jaguar b. p. · 07-23-07, 03:00 PM

That 72 virgins thing sounds like another one of your fabrications,
I've never heard this anywhere except from Fox News and similar morons

oldreliable67 · 07-23-07, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar b. p.

That 72 virgins thing sounds like another one of your fabrications,
I've never heard this anywhere except from Fox News and similar morons

Oh, no! Say it ain't so! No 72 virgins await martyrs in heaven? Shoot, just when I was considering converting...but you never heard of this? Strange. Even the Guardian has heard of the 72 virgins for, except the Guardian says they are for all Muslims, not just martyrs.

Quote:

there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas."

It appears that your education is lacking in this respect as well.

Gladiator · 07-23-07, 04:30 PM

Dear Old Reliable,

So instead of 72 virgins, the real promise for a Muslim man with outstanding virtue is 72 apetising women, not necessarily virgins, in addition to all your wives, in heaven.

Gladiator · 07-23-07, 04:53 PM

Dear Jaguar BP,

The real reason for the war in Iraq is the lost paperwork. The Anthrax was destroyed, but the paper work documenting the destruction of the Anthrax was either lost, or never filled out.

The dramatic White Powder speech by Colin Powell to the UN could not have been made, if there was documentation of the destruction of the Anthrax. There was documentation that Anthrax had existed in Iraq. So, the Iraq war is the result of lost paperwork.

Saddam Hussein gave effective orders to have the WMD destroyed, but did not give orders for double checking the paper work.

Israel was real nervous about the missiles that were within the allowable range, but the range of some the missiles purchased by Iraq, could have been extended, with fairly simple modifications. Some of Iraq missiles, al Samoud 2, were 30 KM over the UN Range Limit of 150 KM.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Iraq3Table6.pdf

oldreliable67 · 07-23-07, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Dear Old Reliable,

So instead of 72 virgins, the real promise for a Muslim man with outstanding virtue is 72 apetising women, not necessarily virgins, in addition to all your wives, in heaven.

The Koran doesn't mention the number of virgins as being 72, but the Hadith does. And notice in the article quoted above, "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin." , You may know this, but just in case you don't, the Hadith is a collection of Mohammend's sayings or a report of something he did. According to some sources, the two most highly respected collections of hadith are the authenticated collections the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (Sahih literally means "correct, true, valid, or sound.") The Hadith is generally viewed as a supplement to the Koran.