75 Percent of Al Qaeda in Iraq has been Destroyed!

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Monday, January 7, 2008 22:37
VIEWED: 10377
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SKYWALKEN

Sunday, December 30, 2007 12:34 AM

...According to Iraq's interior ministry spokesman.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318937,00.html

Maj. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf said the disruption of the terrorist network was due to improvements in the Iraqi security forces — which he said had made strides in weeding out commanders and officers with ties to militias or who were involved in criminal activities.

He also credited the rise of anti-Al Qaeda in Iraq groups, mostly made up of Sunni fighters the Shiite-dominated government has cautiously begun to embrace. Additionally, an increase in American troops since June has been credited with pushing many militants out of Baghdad.

Khalaf's assertion that three-fourths of al-Qaida in Iraq had been destroyed could not be independently verified and he did not elaborate on how the percentage was determined.

But violence in Iraq has dropped significantly since June — the U.S. military says it is down 60 percent nationwide — demonstrating success in fighting the terrorist network.

"Their activity is now limited to certain places north of Baghdad," Khalaf said at a news conference. "We're working on pursuing those groups, that is the coming fight."

Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, told a small group of western reporters on Saturday that despite the success against al-Qaida in Iraq, destroying the group is still a top concern for the U.S. military.

"We still regard Al Qaeda as the biggest threat," Petraeus said. "We regard them as the most significant challenge facing Iraq."

After nearly five years of war, American military commanders have learned to couch even optimistic reports in cautious terms. They have repeatedly said that the fight against extremists in Iraq is far from over, noting that they still have the capacity to carry out large attacks.

But the impact of U.S. and Iraqi military success against the group has been reflected in decreased civilian deaths.

According to an Associated Press count, civilian deaths in Iraq have steadily dropped in the second half of 2007 after seeing a high of 2,155 killed in May. Through Friday, deaths in December stood at 691, the lowest for the year and much lower than the 2,309 killed in December 2006.

AP figures on civilian deaths are compiled from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths are not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.

Meanwhile, the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on Saturday for reconciliation between his followers and Iraqi security forces in the holy city of Karbala, according to al-Sadr aide Sheik Mohannad al-Gharrawi.

In August, followers of al-Sadr and fighters loyal to the powerful Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council led by cleric Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim clashed in Karbala during a religious festival, killing 52 people. Since then, al-Sadr loyalists have been targeted in a crackdown by Iraqi security forces.

"This initiative comes as a response to the events that took place in Karbala, when more than 50 pilgrims died," al-Gharrawi said.

After that fighting, al-Sadr announced he was freezing the activities of his Mahdi Army militia for six months — a move that both Iraqi and American officials have said has had a big impact on the reduction in violence.

LEADB

Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:39 PM

Well, that's encouraging. Hopefully the trend will continue, and of course some of the Sunni / Shiite violence has nothing to do with Al Qaeda; but I'll take any sort of progress.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, December 31, 2007 1:15 AM

Oh, good.

So the war is nearly over, the boys will ALL be coming home *S*O*O*N*, the killing and wounding of American military will stop, and the money will quit pouring out, down a bottomless hole.

That is the desired goal. The sooner it happens, the better.

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 31, 2007 2:03 AM

Let me do the math:
5 years/75% Al Qaeda destroyed= ? years/100% Al Qaeda destroyed...

Jaynemathisall

GEEZER

Monday, December 31, 2007 2:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Let me do the math:
5 years/75% Al Qaeda destroyed= ? years/100% Al Qaeda destroyed...

...one year, eight months from now. Just in time for whichever Democrat wins the Presidential election to claim they won the war.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 31, 2007 2:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Let me do the math:
5 years/75% Al Qaeda destroyed= ? years/100% Al Qaeda destroyed...

...one year, eight months from now. Just in time for whichever Democrat wins the Presidential election to claim they won the war.

My post wasn't meant as a real math problem, Geez. It was meant as a jab at how long it's taken to get this far, and a goof on the idea that it will ever truly be over- but then you probably already knew that

.

Wars on ideas are unwinable, unless they involve making of the enemy your friend. Or using nuc-u-lar weapons...

Glowing Chrisisall

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, December 31, 2007 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Let me do the math:
5 years/75% Al Qaeda destroyed= ? years/100% Al Qaeda destroyed...

Jaynemathisall

It's a diminishing returns problem , Chris. 5 years to destroy 75 %, 5 more years to destroy 75 % of what's left, 5 more years to destroy 75 % of what's left of that, and so on, forever ...

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 31, 2007 3:33 PM

Quote:
Wars on ideas are unwinable, unless they involve making of the enemy your friend. Or using nuc-u-lar weapons...

Thank you Chris.

Even if this claim can be objectively verified (and how did they calculate the 75% anyway?), there are a couple of factors not considered.

1. At what rate is Al Qaeda growing elsewhere? If we have reduced Al Qaeda from 1000 member strong to 250 members remaining, but the Al Qaeda in Libya has grown from 1000 members to 3000 members because of the war, the war wasn't all that effective in the anti-terrorism effort, now was it?

2. At what rate is Al Qaeda re-growing in Iraq? Some of this is taken into consideration in the 5-year average, but surely Iraq Al Qaeda has changed tactics by now and gone further underground. Do we know what their true strength is today and how fast they are replacing lost members?

This is akin to living next to a garbage dump / sewer ditch, and rejoicing at having killed 75 rats. Unless the infrastructure of the dump and sewer ditch is sanitized, more rats will come.

I guarantee it. More will come.

--------------------------
After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
-- Source unknown

KIRKULES

Monday, December 31, 2007 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
[B
2. At what rate is Al Qaeda re-growing in Iraq? Some of this is taken into consideration in the 5-year average, but surely Iraq Al Qaeda has changed tactics by now and gone further underground. Do we know what their true strength is today and how fast they are replacing lost members?
--------------------------
B]

It's understandable that those who have invested themselves in the idea that the US can't win in Iraq would spin every bit of good news so that it's just a temporary improvement that will not change the "inevitable" outcome. The fact that many choose to see all successes in the most negative light does not however change the facts. The reason Al Qaeda has "gone further underground" is because when they stick their heads up they get themselves shot. Whether it's the surge or just that the Iraqi people are finally sick of the violence, I don't know. There comes a point at which a fighting force losses it's effectiveness whether it's 75% defeated or 90%, you don't have to kill 100% to call it a victory. I'm sure a large percentage of the Al Qaeda cells in the US are still here but they don't dare try anything because they know that they are being watched. With the Iraqi people now having turned against Al Qaeda they are providing intelligence to the Coalition forces and because the terrorists are foreign fighters they are fairly easy to spot for the local people. Even if Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated it doesn't guarantee the success of the war but it may provide the stability necessary for Iraq to get their political process moving forward.

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 31, 2007 4:24 PM

Holland was successful in securing certain areas of land from the hungry sea....

Mixing mental images Chrisisall

HERO

Monday, December 31, 2007 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...one year, eight months from now. Just in time for whichever Democrat wins the Presidential election to claim they won the war.

One year and six months from now, just in time to run commercials of Democratic leaders declaring the war lost and giving the Republicans a clean sweep victory in both the Presidential and Congressional elections.

H

HERO

Monday, December 31, 2007 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Holland was successful in securing certain areas of land from the hungry sea....

King Canute demonstrated his power by standing on shore and ordering the tide to stop rolling in. He was largely ignored. Little known fact is he later changed his name to Hillary and married a lawyer from Arkansas.

H

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 31, 2007 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

One year and six months from now, just in time to run commercials of Democratic leaders declaring the war lost and giving the Republicans a clean sweep victory in both the Presidential and Congressional elections.

Friends don't let friends drink & post.

Sober Chrisisall

MAL4PREZ

Monday, December 31, 2007 7:51 PM

More like freebase and post...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

HERO

Monday, December 31, 2007 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Sober Chrisisall

That may be the saddest thing I've ever heard.

Happy New Year.

H

GEEZER

Monday, December 31, 2007 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wars on ideas are unwinable, unless they involve making of the enemy your friend.

I disagree. The war in Iraq can be won when the folk there realize that Al Queda have nothing for them but death and terror. We don't have to be everyone's friend, just let them realize that Al Queda and the other groups that set off car bombs in markets and execute captives are their real enemy. This seems to be happening.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, January 1, 2008 1:47 AM

Hello,

The recent news in Iraq seems heartening, and makes me hopeful that Iraq won't end the way Vietnam did. I don't feel much better about going in there (I still think it was the wrong war) but I'm gratified that the bottomless pit of money and blood has a bottom after all.

That having been said, I wish the military would stop inventing numbers. 75% of Al Qaeda is destroyed? When did our enemy start submitting census forms?

As an olive branch to the pro-war people, I feel compelled to offer a quote from my friend Ron, who is a veteran of Vietnam:

"A million people died in the Battle of Somme in World War One. Twenty-thousand Brits bought it on the first day. About two-thousand Americans got planted at Normandy. Sixty-thousand Americans were killed in action during Nam. Nobody remembers what a f*cking war is like anymore. God help us if we ever get in a real war again. People will crap themselves while watching the news at eleven, and the country will lose the determination needed to win."

I don't agree with all his views, but he may have a valid point in there somewhere. Still, I think if we ever bothered to declare a war, we'd be in it to win it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 2:36 AM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/20/bush_draper/index_n
p.html

There has never been a moment when we were not winning in Iraq. Victory has followed victory, from "Mission Accomplished" to the purple fingers of the Iraqi election to, most recently, President Bush's meeting at Camp Cupcake in Anbar province with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni leader of the group Anbar Awakening (who was assassinated a week later). Turning point has followed turning point, from Bush's proclamation two years ago of his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" to his announcement last week of his "Return on Success." "We're kicking ass," he briefed the Australian deputy prime minister on Sept. 6 about his latest visit to Iraq.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

As an olive branch to the pro-war people, I feel compelled to offer a quote from my friend Ron, who is a veteran of Vietnam:

"A million people died in the Battle of Somme in World War One. Twenty-thousand Brits bought it on the first day. About two-thousand Americans got planted at Normandy. Sixty-thousand Americans were killed in action during Nam. "

two more numbers worth mentioning: according to Wikipedia, approximately 2300 were killed in the Pearl Harbor attacks, and just below 3000 0n 9/11

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/20/bush_draper/index_n
p.html

Wow! An op-ed piece by Bill Clinton's former press flack! Oooh.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 3:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/20/bush_draper/index_n
p.html

Wow! An op-ed piece by Bill Clinton's former press flack! Oooh.

As opposed to the article in the original post, from that bastion of fair and balanced misinformation, f*xnews.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:27 PM

75% in Iraq?.....That's a nice number Herbert! Of course it really means NOTHING, considering no one knows how many terrorists are in Iraq, and of that estimated number how many are bona fide Al Qaida, or just your average, ordinary sectarian maniac murderers.

Bush LIED to America & the world when he said that America would bring Bin Laden to justice. 6 years later, Bin Laden & Al Zawahiri, et al are laughing their asses off...more & more useful idiot suicide bombers are signing on with them...why?...because THEY'RE STILL ALIVE!.....still able to threaten the West, and still able to carry out enough mayhem to attract and excite all the miscreantic, pathetic, sociopaths in the Islamic world. That was Bush's JOB! Our quarry "went to ground"...so what did we do?..we gave him lot's of ground by playing kissypoo with Musharraf, instead of doing what the world would have backed us up on, wiping out Al Qaida & Taliban in Pakistan.
Only way we'll ever see Al Qaida go away is:
a) Kill or capture Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Omar.
b) Strangle Islamic State of Iran financially
c) Blockade of Islamic State of Iran to prevent weapons shipments
d) re-negotiate our "security" deal with Saudi Arabia; something that includes a commitment by them to "bring moderation" to the madrassas teaching young Muslims hatred of the West year after year.

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
As opposed to the article in the original post, from that bastion of fair and balanced misinformation, f*xnews.

You might have had a point, if the basic information in the Fox article hadn't also been reported by the networks, the news channels, PBS, AP, BBC, Reuters, Al Jazzera, the Washington Post, etc., etc., etc.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

MONKSDAD

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:38 PM

that is awesome.. 75% of al qaeda destroyed after 5 years of fighting.... and how many al qaeda were there before we invaded Iraq? I think that number was 0, yes ZERO.....So let me see,, we have destroyed 75% of the problem that wasn't even there when we got there...our leaders are so awesome.
awesome awesome awesome.

"And I think calling him that is an insult to the psychotic lowlife community."

HERO

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monksdad:
and how many al qaeda were there before we invaded Iraq? I think that number was 0, yes ZERO.....So let me see,, we have destroyed 75% of the problem that wasn't even there when we got there...our leaders are so awesome.
awesome awesome awesome.

Except for that one guy. The one they caught in Baghdad. And that camp...the one they destroyed in Northern Iraq with the help of our Kurd buddies.

And...oh, wait. You said Al Queda. There were none of those, except...and no Chemical weapons, except..., no prohibited missiles, except...,and the surge failed miserabley, except...and the war was lost, except...

So let me see,, we have destroyed 75% of the problem that liberals and Bush-haters never (because of intentional or negligent political bias) realized or admitted was there...your leaders are so awesome.
awesome awesome awesome.

H

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...the networks, the news channels, PBS, AP, BBC, Reuters, Al Jazzera, the Washington Post, etc., etc., etc

Who also post articles without the "Yay! We're winning!" spin that dominates the f*x at f*x.

You'll note that the nytimes is saying: "The top American military commander in Iraq said Saturday that violent attacks in the country had fallen by 60 percent since June, but cautioned that security gains were “tenuous” and “fragile,” requiring political and economic progress to cement them.... Although the data showed a sharp fall in civilian deaths from their peak between mid-2006 and mid-2007, the rate of decline appeared to level off in the past two months... However, he conceded that while attacks were down in the rest of the country, they had not fallen in the northern province of Nineveh, which includes Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, with a population of 1.7 million."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html?em&ex=1
199163600&en=55142a753adccea6&ei=5087%0A

The times online headline is: "Iraqis fear surge is a temporary lull instead of permanent peace"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3115872.ece

The BBC news: "Iraqi and American commanders said the improvement in security in the country over 2007 had been remarkable. But top US commander Gen David Petraeus warned al-Qaeda remained the greatest threat facing the country and security gains could easily reverse."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7164520.stm

Hey, I'm glad this was posted here because I was noticing that news of Iraq was getting pushed behind the piles of election BS, and I hadn't heard any updates in a while. I'm very glad to see the violence is in fact down. But it's hardly a sweeping victory. I think excellent points are being raised as to 1) the fact that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we gave it a push and 2) Our administration and those it funds (the Iraqi interior ministry which released the 75% figure which "could not be independently verified and [Khalaf] did not elaborate on how the percentage was determined.") are constantly pushing this idea of near victory on us. Near - so we won't quit, and victory - so we'll feel good about supporting it, cause the good guys are winning.

Hero said: "And...oh, wait. You said Al Queda. There were none of those, except...and no Chemical weapons, except..., no prohibited missiles, except...,and the surge failed miserabley, except...and the war was lost, except..."

Yeah, and even you can come up with nothing to put after the "except..." huh?

Now, how come you two (Geezer and Hero) post so quick to this thread and won't answer me on the Bhutto thread? Too hot for you? Can't take it?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So let me see,, we have destroyed 75% of the problem that liberals and Bush-haters never (because of intentional or negligent political bias) realized or admitted was there

Things are getting better in Iraq? Well it's ABOUT GORRAM TIME!!!
We stirred up the hornet's nest, and turned on the garden hose...yay us.
And yes, I hate Bush liberally (that's a joke- I don't really know the man).
Bin Laden & Co. needed a can o' woopass opened on 'em...well, at least it got opened on somebody.

Disgusted Chrisisall

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, January 2, 2008 8:39 PM

The question isn't how many al qaeda we've killed. I really don't see how relevant that is. We've managed to kill and get killed a shit load of everybody over there.

The question is whether or not we've won any hearts and minds...

the question is whether we've convinced the people by-and-large that we are trying to help them, that we are not their greatest enemy, that they don't want to turn to terrorist organizations as a matter of defending against the threat of American imperialism.

Frankly, we've done a poor job of convincing even me. It's pretty obvious that we haven't been concerned with the Iraqi infrastructure, or we would have actually awarded most rebuilding contracts to Iraqi companies, rather than padding the pockets of big companies with powerful lobbies. If we were trying to help them, we wouldn't have gotten passed through their puppet government a huge oil giveaway to our oil companies at the expense of a resource that could go towards the people of Iraq.

This is a scam, and they know it too.

It doesn't matter how many Al qaeda we kill, if our precence there is breeding more enemies of America, Al Qaeda or otherwise...

unless we kill or displace all of them...that would solve it. At this rate that shouldn't take too long actually. Maybe this war won't last another 15 years.

GEEZER

Thursday, January 3, 2008 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Who also post articles without the "Yay! We're winning!" spin that dominates the f*x at f*x.

How about an example of the "Yay! We're winning!" spin from the Fox article, please.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The recent news in Iraq seems heartening, and makes me hopeful that Iraq won't end the way Vietnam did.

Why? Vietnam ended after we won the war, but the Democrats killed funding at the last minute so that we lost all the ground we had achieved, and the media spun major American victories as defeats and beamed millions of images of carnage without context to the American people. We didn't lose Vietnam because of anything going on in Vietnam, and we won't lose Iraq that way either.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Vietnam ended after we won the war, but the Democrats killed funding at the last minute so that we lost all the ground we had achieved

You mean, if we had just stayed in Vietnam for like 10 more years, all would have been well there (real question hidden in the snark

)?

Anyway, good- we've done a man's job in Iraq- we can go home now.

Really naive Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 3, 2008 5:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
It's pretty obvious that we haven't been concerned with the Iraqi infrastructure, or we would have actually awarded most rebuilding contracts to Iraqi companies, rather than padding the pockets of big companies with powerful lobbies. If we were trying to help them, we wouldn't have gotten passed through their puppet government a huge oil giveaway to our oil companies at the expense of a resource that could go towards the people of Iraq.

This is a scam, and they know it too.

THANK YOU!

(Standing ovation.)

--------------------------
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.
--Mark Twain

KIRKULES

Thursday, January 3, 2008 9:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
It's pretty obvious that we haven't been concerned with the Iraqi infrastructure, or we would have actually awarded most rebuilding contracts to Iraqi companies, rather than padding the pockets of big companies with powerful lobbies. If we were trying to help them, we wouldn't have gotten passed through their puppet government a huge oil giveaway to our oil companies at the expense of a resource that could go towards the people of Iraq.

This is a scam, and they know it too.

THANK YOU!

(Standing ovation.)

--------------------------
Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.
--Mark Twain

Yep, everyone knows the Iraqis are famous for their giant infrastructure companies. Must be hundreds of companies over there that could whip out an few hundred power plants in no time flat. And of course it would have been totally safe to hand over millions of dollars to those trustworthy Iraqi companies.

Even the Russians and Chinese come to the US when they need quality infrastructure built. If we had hired Iraqi companies they would just have embezzled half the money and subcontracted the rest to some substandard foreign company.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 9:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

Yep, everyone knows the Iraqis are famous for their giant infrastructure companies.

Greater Baghdad Builders and Suppliers, downtown, corner of Ahlmed & Sakir- legend has it the founders descended from Pyramid builders.
A subdivision of Halliburton U.S.

Believe me Chrisisall

HERO

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
legend has it the founders descended from Pyramid builders.

So its a Masonic Conspiracy...

H

CHRISISALL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

So its a Masonic Conspiracy...

So it would seem...

RUE

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:55 PM

Kirkules:

"Yep, everyone knows the Iraqis are famous for their giant infrastructure companies."

After Gulf War the first aka Desert Storm (remember ? I know, I know, it was so loooong ago - but stretch your brain a little ) the Iraqis rebuilt their infrastructure in under a year.
After Gulf War - part Deux, Trois, Quatre et al, the US wasn't interested in using French, Russian or Chinese parts (for the French, Russian and Chinese systems that needed repair). No, the US wanted to use - guess what - entire US systems ! Why repair when you can make more $$$ replacing ?? ! Eh ? Unfortunately for the Iraqis, Bremer handed out billions (8 - 12B, but that's a minor detail) with no accounting, literally. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aRfRyhT0yHzU&refer
=us . And efforts since then have been hampered by - oh, US restrictions on who can bid, by lack of oversight to see if the projects have actually been, you know, done, and other minor details. Yeah, those horribly corrupt US contractors, I mean, er, Iraqis, are all to blame. Because it can't be the US. The US never does anything wrong.

"Even the Russians and Chinese come to the US when they need quality infrastructure built."

And the Pakistanis rely on the Chinese for their deep-water oil ports, the Venezuelans for oil field development, and Japan and China are both depending on Russia for the trans-Siberian pipeline. Yeah, the US has a lock on infrastructure, all right. HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CAUSAL

Thursday, January 3, 2008 10:59 PM

Personally, I blame the Bush administration.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

KIRKULES

Thursday, January 3, 2008 11:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yeah, the US has a lock on infrastructure, all right. HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Are you trying to tell me you think the Iraqis or some other country could have rebuilt Iraq infrastructure quicker than the US companies. That's just ridiculous. If there was problem it was with the timely rewarding of contracts and the violence on the ground not the American companies.

RIGHTEOUS9

Thursday, January 3, 2008 11:23 PM

Kirkules are you fucking serious?

or have you not heard about the umpteen scandals involving Haliburton and our american companies over there?

Yeah, they are on the up and up.

But where you have a point, you have a point. Embezzlement and bad faith is clearly a concern that would be worth avoiding, whether giving the money to American or Iraqi companies...thats where oversight comes in, somethig we had so little of over our own companies, and speaking of wasted money, wasn't it like 90 million dollars that just dissapeared over there...yeah Bush has really been minding the store.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:19 AM

Kirkules,

Let me repost this as you seem to have not read it: "After Gulf War the first aka Desert Storm (remember ? I know, I know, it was so loooong ago - but stretch your brain a little ) the Iraqis rebuilt their infrastructure in under a year."

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Are you trying to tell me you think the Iraqis or some other country could have rebuilt Iraq infrastructure quicker than the US companies. That's just ridiculous.

As for your second statement

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If there was problem it was with the ... violence on the ground ...

I'd like to instruct you in some international law. As the occupying force, the US was obligated to provide internal security - ie policing. You may not have noticed, but the US made no plans for policing Iraq.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:39 AM

Quote:

Are you trying to tell me you think the Iraqis or some other country could have rebuilt Iraq infrastructure quicker than the US companies. That's just ridiculous.

Hello,

I fail to see what is rediculous about the premise that US corporations might not be the most efficient rebuilders of infrastructure.

Do you have some practical reason, beyond patriotism, to believe that US corporations are the most efficient in the world?

Do you have some practical reason, beyond disdain for the Iraqis, to believe that their own companies and workers would be unable to complete the work?

I don't know where you live.

I live in the United States, where it takes US corporations an entire year to re-pave a 10 mile stretch of road.

I live in the United States, where it takes nearly a decade to complete a light rail system.

I live in the United States, where corporations that win municipal contracts to enhance or repair the infrastructure routinely go overbudget, have shoddy worksmanship, and waste or steal appropriated funds at an alarming rate.

I live in the United States, and I love my country, but I'm not deluded into believing that we do everything better than everyone else.

Anyway, it would have benefitted the Iraqis to rebuild their own infrastructure. They would have gained pride, boosted their economy and workforce, and gained valuable experience in the industry.

Still, I suppose when you consider that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place, all of this is moot.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Vietnam ended after we won the war, but the Democrats killed funding at the last minute so that we lost all the ground we had achieved
You mean, if we had just stayed in Vietnam for like 10 more years, all would have been well there (real question hidden in the snark)?

Why not? Isn’t all well in Japan? South Korea? Germany? Those are countries we didn’t give up on at the last minute.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 4, 2008 2:51 AM

Hello,

There is something to the notion that with enough time, effort, and money invested, you can make even a bad decision work.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:14 AM

"So I built a second one, and that one sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 7:35 AM

Well, while we're quoting Monty Python:

Armaments, chapter two, verses nine through twenty-one:

And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats and large chu... [Skiped a bit] And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:09 AM

wow...did you remember that whole thing?

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Are you trying to tell me you think the Iraqis or some other country could have rebuilt Iraq infrastructure quicker than the US companies. That's just ridiculous. If there was problem it was with the timely rewarding of contracts and the violence on the ground not the American companies.

Iraq produces some of the best engineers in the world. Well, they produce some of the best students; mostly it's the British that train them. Anyway, they have some large and competent engineering firms, who do you think built that entire infrastructure in the first place? As it turns out Americans aren't the best at everything ;) and the Iraqis can do things for themselves, just as well if not better than outside influences. The fact is that engineering contracts in Iraq haven't been going to the lowest bidder; they've been going to the American firm. Bush has admitted this, sort of; he said why should firms from countries that didn't fight profit, which lends the question why did Bush really get involved? And of course the further question, why aren't British firms given contracts?

A particular anecdote sticks in my mind, where an Iraqi engineering firm bid something like $300,000 for a bridge building contract, using local materials and workers, that ended up going to an American firm, using American materials and workers. So what was the American bid? $200,000? No, it was over several million.

So the Iraqis are paying their oil money, to rebuild their infrastructure, but its Americans deciding where that money goes and invariably receiving it. There's a name for that, at least when people like the mafia do it, it's called Money Laundering.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why not? Isn’t all well in Japan? South Korea? Germany? Those are countries we didn’t give up on at the last minute.

Lets ask Korea when the Korean war actually ends and troops withdraw and the country is reunited, shall we?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Lets ask Korea when the Korean war actually ends and troops withdraw and the country is reunited, shall we?

As much as I hate admitting this, I couldn't agree more.

This article is pure bullshit. At the very least, those who would really love to believe this all were true should at least question the objectivity of it.

I'VE BEDDED 75% OF THE WOMEN IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO AND BLEW THEIR MIND!!!!!!

Even if I were able to get a few girls to endorse me who I have bedded, and subsequently blown their minds, it still would offer no proof that I had actually bedded 75% of the women in the south side of Chicago, or that they even enjoyed it for that matter.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why not? Isn’t all well in Japan? South Korea? Germany? Those are countries we didn’t give up on at the last minute.
Lets ask Korea when the Korean war actually ends and troops withdraw and the country is reunited, shall we?

The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:

wow...did you remember that whole thing?

Yes, but it's kind of an adaptation, because the real quote is a dialogue between at least two, maybe three people, as I remember.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.

Actually finn, the Korean war is not over, it is enjoying a protracted cease-fire. North and South Korea are historically part of Korea, that is they were part of the same county prior to the Second World War and the Korean war; North Korea is hardly a prosperous liberal democracy. South Korea is still packed full of foreign troops.

But hey, if we ignore all the inconvenient facts, its ok. Hey maybe if we partitioned Iraq in to Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni countries we'd have better luck? After all at the moment we need to get the whole country to become a prosperous liberal democracy, if we split it we only need one third to play straight before we can declare victory. Why fix the whole problem when we can declare it fixed halfway?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, January 4, 2008 4:56 PM

75% destroyed. Great! And how do they know this exactly?

What really bugs me is the way that the government is using this war as an exscuse to beef up the tools/procedures used to spy on Americans.

But hey, when we all have to use SpeedPass to drive on the highways, Metro pass to use the subway, a checkcard to make purchases, all our emails are checked, phone calls monitored, and the cameras on all the streetcorners are up and running....we should all be a lot safer. Right? Right?

Or would we be well monitored and controlled slaves/prisoners?

I cant seem to figure it out.

But we should always put our faith in the government, right? They wouldnt EVER want to do something like that...Right?

*sigh

When we completely lose the ability for an armed revolt, we will really be screwed.

KPO

Friday, January 4, 2008 5:15 PM

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually finn, the Korean war is not over, it is enjoying a protracted cease-fire. North and South Korea are historically part of Korea, that is they were part of the same county prior to the Second World War and the Korean war; North Korea is hardly a prosperous liberal democracy. South Korea is still packed full of foreign troops.

But hey, if we ignore all the inconvenient facts, its ok. Hey maybe if we partitioned Iraq in to Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni countries we'd have better luck? After all at the moment we need to get the whole country to become a prosperous liberal democracy, if we split it we only need one third to play straight before we can declare victory. Why fix the whole problem when we can declare it fixed halfway?

We didn't partition korea citizen - as i remember it we fought out a stalemate with a massive chinese/North korean communist army, so their invasion of the south didn't get any further than the 38th parallel.

I don't see why you are holding us responsible for the development of the subsequently soviet administrated, communist north. Or do you suggest that the stalemate should never have been good enough, and call for a renewal of hostilities to conquer the communist north?

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
We didn't partition korea citizen - as i remember it we fought out a stalemate with a massive chinese/North korean communist army, so their invasion of the south didn't get any further than the 38th parallel.

Actually we did partition Korea, after the Second World War. In 1945 the fledgling UN set it up much like Germany with the North administered by Soviet Russia, and the South by the United States. The two administrative areas were supposed to be reunited in short order, but in 1948 with increasing cold war tensions two governments were set up. This partition was at the 38th parallel, and in 1950 the North invaded the south over that line, and was eventually pushed back to the 38th parallel by the time of the cease fire of 1953. So yes we did partition Korea, we did so in 1945.

Quote:
I don't see why you are holding us responsible for the development of the subsequently soviet administrated, communist north. Or do you suggest that the stalemate should never have been good enough, and call for a renewal of hostilities to conquer the communist north?

I'm not blaming anyone, and I'm certainly not suggesting we invade North Korea, but I don't think we can be all self-congratulatory and start talking about victory because we've got half a country out of a whole one. Finn wants to ignore half of the Korean peninsula so that he can say Korea is a success story, but I don't think we can do that, any more than we can say Germany had been rebuilt after the Second World War until at least East and West Germany had been reunited.

If we can say that, then we could equally say Iraq was a victory if we cut it up into Kurdish, shiite and Sunni countries, even if only one of those partitions became a liberal democracy and the other two spiralled in to warlordism, which I would hope would sound like nonsense.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Korean war is over, and South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy.
Actually finn, the Korean war is not over, it is enjoying a protracted cease-fire. North and South Korea are historically part of Korea, that is they were part of the same county prior to the Second World War and the Korean war; North Korea is hardly a prosperous liberal democracy. South Korea is still packed full of foreign troops.

But hey, if we ignore all the inconvenient facts, its ok. Hey maybe if we partitioned Iraq in to Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni countries we'd have better luck? After all at the moment we need to get the whole country to become a prosperous liberal democracy, if we split it we only need one third to play straight before we can declare victory. Why fix the whole problem when we can declare it fixed halfway?

Inconvenient facts? Like these facts:

Korea was partitioned in 1945.

The Korean War didn’t begin until 1952. Korea had been partitioned for seven years, by then

The Korean War was NOT fought to reunite North and South Korea, but to protect the partition, from Northern Communist invasion.

Which it did, because the US did not give up on South Korea.

And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea which is a starving Stalinist state.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I don't see why you are holding us responsible for the development of the subsequently soviet administrated, communist north. Or do you suggest that the stalemate should never have been good enough, and call for a renewal of hostilities to conquer the communist north?

Heads should roll

Basically, citizen is obfuscating with this childish argument that because we didn’t fight China to control North Korea that the successes of South Korea don’t count. But controlling North Korea was never the goal. The goal was to protect South Korea, which we did, to great success. Something we might have been able to repeat in Vietnam had we not given up, but who knows what might have been. I can only say what was, and South Korea is a stunning success story, which I wish Vietnam had been, as well, and hope Iraq becomes.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:33 PM

Oh, you mean the UN did something right with their 'police action' in Korea ?

"And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War."

For the record, it was not a war, it was a UN police action. Also, armistice means a truce, not peace. If the war had really ended, there would be no justification for US troops in Korea.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, you mean the UN did something right with their 'police action' in Korea ?

"And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War."

For the record, it was not a war, it was a UN police action. Also, armistice means a truce, not peace. If the war had really ended, there would be no justification for US troops in Korean.

So World War II is still going on, huh? We still have troops in Europe and Japan.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KIRKULES

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

So the Iraqis are paying their oil money, to rebuild their infrastructure, but its Americans deciding where that money goes and invariably receiving it. There's a name for that, at least when people like the mafia do it, it's called Money Laundering

The Iraqis are barely making enough money in oil revenues to keep their government running. Iraq is an independent country and can spend their oil revenues however they please, there's just not enough coming in now to rebuild infrastructure. Because of this, almost all of the infrastructure money is coming from US funds. As a US taxpayer I want to see my tax dollar go to US companies when possible. I realise the Iraqi people are great engineers and could do some of the work and I'm sure some of the US companies would love to hire them if they are qualified. When I spoke of China and Russia turning to the US for infrastructure I wasn't suggesting that Americans did most of the work. General Electric has a Chinese division that does huge power plant projects and they can do the same thing in Iraq.

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Inconvenient facts? Like these facts:

Korea was partitioned in 1945.

The Korean War didn’t begin until 1952. Korea had been partitioned for seven years, by then

The Korean War was NOT fought to reunite North and South Korea, but to protect the partition, from Northern Communist invasion.

Which it did, because the US did not give up on South Korea.

And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea which is a starving Stalinist state.

Most of which proves my point, but thanks for the childish tempertantrum.

So I guess if Iraq was partitioned, and one of the partitions turned out ok while the others became starving stalinist states that would be 'success' in your world? I think success is where you succeed, not where you say "people who disagree with me are childish, whaa!"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Inconvenient facts? Like these facts:

Korea was partitioned in 1945.

The Korean War didn’t begin until 1952. Korea had been partitioned for seven years, by then

The Korean War was NOT fought to reunite North and South Korea, but to protect the partition, from Northern Communist invasion.

Which it did, because the US did not give up on South Korea.

And the 1953 armistice ended the Korean War.

Today South Korea is a prosperous liberal democracy, in stark contrast to North Korea which is a starving Stalinist state.
Most of which proves my point, but thanks for the childish tempertantrum.

Well if your point was that the Korean War was fought to protect the already existent partition from invasion by Northern communists and in doing so, South Korea became a successful democracy, then yes, it does prove your point, even though one is hard-pressed to find that point in your previous statements.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So I guess if Iraq was partitioned, and one of the partitions turned out ok while the others became starving stalinist states that would be 'success' in your world? I think success is where you succeed, not where you say "people who disagree with me are childish, whaa!"

So then you support fighting the Iraq war until the entire country is a successful democracy?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Iraqis are barely making enough money in oil revenues to keep their government running. Iraq is an independent country and can spend their oil revenues however they please, there's just not enough coming in now to rebuild infrastructure.

Sure, when the contracts are going to companies charging many times the minimum bid. As a US tax payer I would have thought getting the job done at a minimum hit to your pocket would have been important, but I applaud your selflessness in helping the struggling US construction firms

.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:29 PM

"So World War II is still going on, huh? We still have troops in Europe and Japan."

They are stationed there, not on active duty as in Korea.

Finn, Finn, Finn ... you know better than that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well if your point was that the Korean War was fought to protect the already existent partition from invasion by Northern communists and in doing so, South Korea became a successful democracy, then yes, it does prove your point, even though one is hard-pressed to find that point in your previous statements.

Well if 'one' bothered to listen to a word anyone else said for a change, one may become enlightened. I don't compartmentalise the whole situation as you do, nor do I look at a job half done and say "yeah, we done good, next!" (hardly a good position to take when talking about sticking 'till the jobs done, I might add). Korea was one country, it was broken up after the Second World War and the Korean war (which still hasn't ended BTW) resulted from that partitioning and the following Cold war climate.

Yeah, the Korean war was fought to defend South Korea from Northern aggression, not only did I not refute that, but stated it myself (in one of those posts you didn't bother to read). It is, however completely irrelevant. We can't have a complete success in Korea, until it returns to a state prior to our partitioning, or at the very least both North and South Korea become prosperous and good places to live.

Half the country is prosperous, but just because you don't care about the other half, doesn't mean it just goes away.

Quote:
So then you support fighting the Iraq war until the entire country is a successful democracy?

I have stated time and again on this forum that although I did not support the invasion, I likewise do not support an early withdrawl. Neither do I support American tactics, but that's a different matter. Perhaps if you read what I write, rather than assuming that everything I said is childish and irrational because I don't agree with you, you'd become enlightened as to what I really think?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"So World War II is still going on, huh? We still have troops in Europe and Japan."

They are stationed there, not on active duty as in Korea.

WHAT???!! What a load of crap. “Active Duty” refers to full-time service in the military. Station simply refers to the post at which a Active Duty member or Reservist is located. I promise you that there are plenty of ACTIVE DUTY servicemen and servicewomen STATIONED in Europe.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well if your point was that the Korean War was fought to protect the already existent partition from invasion by Northern communists and in doing so, South Korea became a successful democracy, then yes, it does prove your point, even though one is hard-pressed to find that point in your previous statements.
Well if 'one' bothered to listen to a word anyone else said for a change, one may become enlightened. I don't compartmentalise the whole situation as you do, nor do I look at a job half done and say "yeah, we done good, next!" (hardly a good position to take when talking about sticking 'till the jobs done, I might add). Korea was one country, it was broken up after the Second World War and the Korean war (which still hasn't ended BTW) resulted from that partitioning and the following Cold war climate.

Yeah, the Korean war was fought to defend South Korea from Northern aggression, not only did I not refute that, but stated it myself (in one of those posts you didn't bother to read). It is, however completely irrelevant. We can't have a complete success in Korea, until it returns to a state prior to our partitioning, or at the very least both North and South Korea become prosperous and good places to live.

Half the country is prosperous, but just because you don't care about the other half, doesn't mean it just goes away.

So you support the war in Iraq until Iraq is a prosperous liberal democracy. Glad to hear it.

And you evidently support invading North Korea to make North Korea a prosperous Liberal Democracy.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you support the war in Iraq until Iraq is a prosperous liberal democracy. Glad to hear it.

I said as much in my post. I do not, however support most of the tactics the American military is using to fight it. Winning hearts and minds isn't about scooping them off the pavement afterwards and mounting them on a wall.

Quote:
And you evidently support invading North Korea to make North Korea a prosperous Liberal Democracy.

No, that would be a strawman, or you know a 'lie'. A spectacularly foolish one, given that I said the exact opposite in one of my posts (evidently one of the ones you couldn't be bothered to read). Unless you can quote me where those words appear in any of my posts?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you support the war in Iraq until Iraq is a prosperous liberal democracy. Glad to hear it.
I said as much in my post. I do not, however support most of the tactics the American military is using to fight it. Winning hearts and minds isn't about scooping them off the pavement afterwards and mounting them on a wall.

So you would support the tactics used in the Korean War that successfully liberated South Korea.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No, that would be a strawman, or you know a 'lie'. A spectacularly foolish one, given that I said the exact opposite in one of my posts (evidently one of the ones you couldn't be bothered to read). Unless you can quote me where those words appear in any of my posts?

So then you support leaving North Korea as a starving Stalinist state. Just making sure.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you would support the tactics used in the Korean War that successfully liberated South Korea.

It's a completely different circumstance and time, unless you think an occupation of civilian centres is the same as a military conflict? Do you support the tactics used to liberate the Falkland Islands? What about the tactics of the British in Northern Ireland (which are nowhere near as heavy handed as those in Iraq I add). Do you have a point, or even a relevant question?

Quote:
So then you support leaving North Korea as a starving Stalinist state. Just making sure.

Well, I guess I have to point it out again in lieu of you reading what I've already posted. I do not support a war of aggression in North Korea. That doesn't mean I think Korea is a stunning success. Believing it is either a success, or we have to go to war, would be a false dichotomy.

Just because I don't think Korea is a stunning success, doesn't mean I think we should make the situation even worse, and destabilise the entire region if not the wider international community by going to war.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

RUE

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:40 PM

Ok, let me rephrase that "COMBAT DUTY". Are US troops in Germany on COMBAT DUTY as they are in Korea ? Just curious.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:49 PM

If true, that's great news. But I'm really tracking only two things:

Will we w/draw our troops before we twist the Iraqis' arms into signing the Oil Law? Or will we keep them there until someone cries uncle? And...
What happens to the permanent bases that we're building?

I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil. – Alan Greenspan

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:01 AM

Some thoughts - when the Brits withdrew from Basra - and they didn't have nearly the problems the US does with the rest of Iraq - the place blew apart. It's true - it doesn't matter how tamped-down your occupying troops have things. If you don't solve the other problems violence will ensue.

I'm guessing the US will stall on w/drawal and in the end extract a permanent US presence.

The reasons are these: if the US doesn't get the oil deal it wants, any delay at w/drawal is more money in the pocket for contractors AND a further draining of the US economy (starving the beast). If the US does get the oil deal it wants, then that's an extra heaping of gravy. It's a win less/ win more situation. Either way, by postponing w/drawal there are no losses. AND - the longer they postpone w/drawal the better the chances get for wedging in those permanent bases.

As for ultimate security, prosperity and democracy for the area of Iraq - either in one chunk or in pieces - that's not even on the drawing board. All they're trying to do is create enough of a paper mache image so that they can occasionally point to victory after success after corner.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 5, 2008 3:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well, I guess I have to point it out again in lieu of you reading what I've already posted. I do not support a war of aggression in North Korea. That doesn't mean I think Korea is a stunning success. Believing it is either a success, or we have to go to war, would be a false dichotomy.

Just because I don't think Korea is a stunning success, doesn't mean I think we should make the situation even worse, and destabilise the entire region if not the wider international community by going to war.

Okay, just to clarify, you do support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state then?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ok, let me rephrase that "COMBAT DUTY". Are US troops in Germany on COMBAT DUTY as they are in Korea ? Just curious.

There aren’t any troops on combat duty in South Korea or Germany, right now. But, there have been more troops in Europe on combat duty in the last 20 years, then there have been in Korea. The Korean war ended in 1953. It’s been a long time since there were any US servicemen or servicewomen on combat duty in Korea.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay, just to clarify, you do support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state then?

I am an advocate of not causing massive wars and killing millions of people because we can. Perhaps you are? Just to clarify, do you support killing millions of people so you can say "I was right"?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, January 5, 2008 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Who also post articles without the "Yay! We're winning!" spin that dominates the f*x at f*x.
How about an example of the "Yay! We're winning!" spin from the Fox article, please.

Actually, I did look this article over closely before I posted what I did above, and I compared it to other articles I found online. Apparently, you didn’t.

First, I find that very few other news sources focused on the 75% number as this one did. Second, there was one only line of caution in Fox's article, which was mentioned then skipped right by: "Khalaf's assertion that three-fourths of al-Qaida in Iraq had been destroyed could not be independently verified and he did not elaborate on how the percentage was determined."

As many other posters have covered, this claim of 75% could be total BS. And look again at the source: the Iraq Interior Ministry. I admit that I know nothing of this organization, but the fact that they have nothing to substantiate their claim means something to me. I know that Iraq is capable of spokesmen like Saddam's Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Remember him? http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

So, this 75% number is completely unsupported, and yet Fox will put it in a headline to grab attention and set the tone of their message. And it was similarly used as the header of this thread.

Now let’s talk wording.

Fox says: "Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, told a small group of western reporters on Saturday that despite the success against al-Qaida in Iraq, destroying the group is still a top concern for the U.S. military."

You see how they did that? This does not admit to Al Qaeda having any power. The power is all ours. We are in command, we are winning. We have success. Yet we are steadfast in pursuing them. Like a doctor continuing to give antibiotics to a patient who’s outwardly all better.

From the NY Times: “But top US commander Gen David Petraeus warned al-Qaeda remained the greatest threat facing the country and security gains could easily reverse." Completely different spin. Surely you see that? This is cautious optimism, allowing that there’s still a threat and we don’t know everything.

Fox: "After nearly five years of war, American military commanders have learned to couch even optimistic reports in cautious terms."Now, geezer, what is this telling us? That any “cautious” words we hear are just the commanders couching their terms. The message: commanders aren't sounding cautious because there is danger (although Petreus said there is, according to every other news source I saw). Certainly, he's not sounding cautious because this 75% estimate might be pure BS. It’s only because Petreus has learned to be cautious in *how he speaks*. The true situation is how Fox already told us: Success! Go us! Yay!

These wording things are small, but they're intentionally done. It sets a tone. This is what leads the Fox-brain-washed to dismiss any cautious words by someone like Petreus as something the “evil liberal left” has forced him to say, and deny the facts that every other news source carries.

Fox also completely ignored this, which I already quoted, if you'd noticed and compared it to the Fox article yourself: “Although the data showed a sharp fall in civilian deaths from their peak between mid-2006 and mid-2007, the rate of decline appeared to level off in the past two months... However, he conceded that while attacks were down in the rest of the country, they had not fallen in the northern province of Nineveh, which includes Mosul, Iraq’s third-largest city, with a population of 1.7 million.”

OK, I doubt my ability to hold anyone's attention even this long, so I’m quitting now.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
The Iraqis are barely making enough money in oil revenues to keep their government running. Iraq is an independent country and can spend their oil revenues however they please, there's just not enough coming in now to rebuild infrastructure.

Wow. I mean - wow. Do you have any idea of the wealth that's coming out of the ground in that little country? Every day? Barely interrupted in the invasion because - you'll note - the oil wells were secured by US forces before the supposed WMD sites that the White House know of so very precisely.

There is more than enough oil money to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastucture. Plenty more than enough. And there's plenty of expertise, too. I was in Kuwait last spring at a technical meeting - these people are not stupid. Just because they wear robes and funny hats doesn't mean they can't build shit. The problem is, the money from the oil that THEY OWN is going through our hands, and it's directed as we see fit. It's going to the oil companies and the war companies and to the American-friendly government that we set up, like the Iraq Interior Ministry... hey, and that's who gave us this 75% number, huh? *scratches head*

Quote:
I realise the Iraqi people are great engineers and could do some of the work and I'm sure some of the US companies would love to hire them if they are qualified.

Oh. My. God. Please just don't speak again until you go talk to an Iraqi engineer. Get this superiority knocked right out of you.

Unbelievable. Do you even hear yourself? "Would love to hire them if they're qualified..."

Laotienye.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay, just to clarify, you do support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state then?
I am an advocate of not causing massive wars and killing millions of people because we can. Perhaps you are? Just to clarify, do you support killing millions of people so you can say "I was right"?

Why are you afraid of answering the question? You support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state? Yes or No.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why are you afraid of answering the question? You support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state? Yes or No.

I'm not afraid of answering the question, I already have, if you care to bother to read my posts. Since you need simplistic answers: No. Just don't try to force a false dichotomy on the conversation, please.

Why are you so afraid of my question? You support the killing of millions of people so that you can say "I was right"? Yes or No.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why are you afraid of answering the question? You support leaving North Korea as a brutal starving totalitarian state? Yes or No.
No.

Okay then, do you support invading North Korea to provide them with the same liberal Democracy that was provided to South Korea? Keeping in mind such an invasion would mean a full on war with China.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Why are you so afraid of my question? You support the killing of millions of people so that you can say "I was right"? Yes or No.

I’m not afraid of answer it, and maybe someday we will discuss that, but right now, I’m trying to figure out your little tirade towards the Korean War, and why you think South Korea's freedom and prosperity as a direct result of the Korean War and the commitment to it's stability is so unimportant.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay then, do you support invading North Korea to provide them with the same liberal Democracy that was provided to South Korea? Keeping in mind such an invasion would mean a full on war with China.

I really hope you aren't surprised when I say you don't read posts by other people. I've answered this several times. I answered it two posts back. I keep answering it. I'll answer it again, please have some semblance of courtesy this time, and bloody well read what I have written.

No, I do not support an Invasion of North Korea. Learn to listen to other people for a change please.

Quote:
I’m not afraid of answer it, and maybe someday we will discuss that,

Yet you're not answering it, while demanding answers I've already provided several times from me. If you're not afraid to answer my question, why don't you?

Quote:
I’m trying to figure out your little tirade towards the Korean War, and why you think South Korea's freedom and prosperity as a direct result of the Korean War and the commitment to it's stability is so unimportant.

Again you show you don't read what I have written. What is the point in asking all these questions if you don't read any of the answers? I did not make any 'tirades' against the Korean war, I've stated that multiple times very clearly. Please read what I write, or don't bother talking to me.

I said that you can't hold up South Korea as an overwhelming success, it's half a success at best. If only half of Iraq becomes a liberal democracy, and the other half becomes a starving Stalinist state, would you declare that as an overwhelming victory in Iraq? I wouldn't, but your suggestion that we only need to look at the success of South Korea and ignore the existence of North Korea would suggest you would.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:41 PM

Quote:
OK, I doubt my ability to hold anyone's attention even this long, so I’m quitting now.

You held mine!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 5, 2008 4:49 PM

Finn- Butting into your conversation with Citizen... There are situations that sometimes just can't be dealt with quickly or effectively and N Korea may be one of them. (I haven't looked into it deeply enough to decide. But with China being N Korea's steadfast ally, until the PRC gets annoyed enough to do something about N Korean refugees flooding across their border, we'd have a hard time getting China to agree to anything exceptionally punitive, and a very hard time doing anything w/o China's agreement. Unless you want to take on China too?) Even you should recognize nobody is omnipotent except your God, and we're not that God.

So while you may pose some galling examples, the reality is that sometimes the only thing we can do is chip away at it through things like sanctions, diplomacy, and reward. It doesn't mean we condone the situation, we may simply not have a choice.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, January 5, 2008 10:39 PM

Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, January 5, 2008 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
OK, I doubt my ability to hold anyone's attention even this long, so I’m quitting now.
You held mine!

Perhaps I should have said what I really meant...

I doubt I held geezer's attention that long.

Anthony: Nice.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 5, 2008 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

ROFL! Lovely, just lovely. You have captured the essence of the framed debate that forms the basis of the neo-con apologists' attack on reason, their rationalization of any and all of their most beloved authoritarian tactics:

"If you don't agree with my choice of how to deal with the problem, you must not believe it's a problem, in fact, you must be causing the problem yourself!"

10 points and a win for the day go to Mr. T! I salute you, sir!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 5, 2008 11:31 PM

Congratulations Anthony.

You just summed up the entirety of the pro-establishment folks argument here on any topic whatsover.

-F

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 6, 2008 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

This recent argument smacks of dishonest debate tactics.

Q - "Do you support pedophiles? That is, do you support adults who rape little children?"

A - "Why, no. Of course not."

Q - "Do you support hiring an armed guard for each and every child in the world, to protect them from pedophiles?"

A - "Well... no. That doesn't seem practical."

Q - "It sounds like you support pedophiles, since you don't want to protect children. You support pedophiles, don't you?"

A - "No, of course not."

Q - "Then hire the armed guards."

A - "I don't think it's even possible to-"

Q - "Admit it. You're a pedophile, aren't you?"

A - "No! Jesus Christ, man."

Q - "A pedophile and a blasphemer! If you don't support protecting kids from pedophiles, then you are a pedophile supporter, or a pedophile yourself, which is just as bad."

A - "Look, just because I don't accept your choice of solutions doesn't mean-"

Q - "Pedophile!"

A - *Sigh* "I give up..."

Q - "He gave up on our children! Monster!"

--Anthony

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
ROFL! Lovely, just lovely. You have captured the essence of the framed debate that forms the basis of the neo-con apologists' attack on reason, their rationalization of any and all of their most beloved authoritarian tactics:

Great post by Anthony there.

Though I don't disagree with you at all, HK, on the fact that this is the neo-con apologists' attack on reason, this is hardly exclusive to the right. I'm positive that the $0.61 per pack National tax on smoking is going to go through once Bush is out of office. Personally, I feel it's the only damn time he's defended constitutional rights in 7 years, but every article I've read about him vetoing the bill painted him as a monster for depriving children of healthcare by vetoing this bill. (As if this money were actually going to benefit anyone other than Big Gov once passed anyhow)

Please.... the man is a monster, but for countless other reasons. The veto of that bill is the one single time the man has done his job without overstepping his boundaries and curtailing personal liberties since he's been in office.

Kinda hard for us to see our own side doing the exact same thing sometimes, innit?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, January 6, 2008 9:17 AM

6ix, I know you like the simplicity of your "they're all ," but I was talking about the neo-con apologists, most notably the ones right here in this community: Messers Finn, Hero, Auraptor, etc. I think you will be hard pressed to find similar irrational bullying from the likes of Signy, Rue and Citizen (though they may get a little strident now and then, a little pig-headed--however, stridency and pig-headedness are not the same as sophistry).

In the larger context, yes, people of all stripes will paint their intellectual adversaries in the darkest hues to suit their agendas, but no one in recent memory has used these tools of misdirection and innuendo with more disastrous effect than our current batch of neo-conservative kleptocrats. The War on Terror, the disasterous adventure in Iraq, the Patriot Acts, the torture and the phone-tapping, all justified using the gambit so precisely described by Anthony's lampoon.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 6, 2008 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
6ix, I know you like the simplicity of your "they're all ," but I was talking about the neo-con apologists, most notably the ones right here in this community: Messers Finn, Hero, Auraptor, etc.

Heh.... I'm probably just as bad as them, but on the libertarian/anarchist side of things. I think I probably get into just as many fights with Hero as I do Rue lol.

Quote:
I think you will be hard pressed to find similar irrational bullying from the likes of Signy, Rue and Citizen (though they may get a little strident now and then, a little pig-headed--however, stridency and pig-headedness are not the same as sophistry).

Seriously... no offence to Rue or Signy, but I find that they can be just as infuriating when we disagree as the others you mentioned. I know I can be pretty damned infurating to others myself too. As far as parallels to what Anthony's post was about though, I can attribute that line of thought to anybody here that's on either "side". The further to the left or right you stand, the more it applies to you. The only difference is the topics with which that line of thought is used.

Quote:
In the larger context, yes, people of all stripes will paint their intellectual adversaries in the darkest hues to suit their agendas, but no one in recent memory has used these tools of misdirection and innuendo with more disastrous effect than our current batch of neo-conservative kleptocrats. The War on Terror, the disasterous adventure in Iraq, the Patriot Acts, the torture and the phone-tapping, all justified using the gambit so precisely described by Anthony's lampoon.

The only thing the neo-cons have done different than anyone else in your recent memory is made the serious blunder of blatenly flashing just how much above the law they think they are. The fact that the Democrats have done not one single thing they promised since they've taken control of congress not only reaffirms in the neo-cons minds that what they were doing is right, but quite frankly scares the shit out of me because it's a very foreboding omen of the next 8 years under Democratic rule.

I could be wrong now.... but I don't think so.

Hopefully in 8 years we can still be discussing things like this, (in particular, the fact that I'm right and that things will continue to get worse under Democratic rule) but I seriously doubt that free speech will exist on the internets in 2016.

Here's hoping.

EDITED TO ADD: I think you're mislabeling them as neo-con apologists. I don't think any of them have ever apologized for anything that the administration has ever done, and I don't think you'd ever convince them that they even have anything to apologize for in the first place.

EDITED TO ADD (2): Nevermind. I just looked up the definition of the word apologist and it didn't mean what I thought it meant. You have my blessing to continue to use that word in its current application.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

USMCHELLRAISER

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:09 PM

About Iraq:

If you haven't been there, you'll never know. Just like if I was stranded in an alternate dimension, I would never be able to really describe America to someone, just like I'll never really know how beautiful Sihnon(sp?) is, what Inara looks like in the morning, or why hot dogs and hot dog buns come in different numbers still.

What we're doing in Iraq is working on so many levels, and I wish that people who would never volunteer to serve as a soldier or Marine would be banned from being able to use our casualties as their argument- an overwhelming percentage of the military believe in what we are doing there, 'the war', and I would go back again if I was still physically capable. A friend of mine will have spent 2 years and ten months of his last four years there, divided amongst five different deployments, and he is not a careerist, nor is he going over there "to shoot people" (how ignorant someone would have to be to think that!).

The American Military has done an excellent job there, and continues to do so, because they are idealists (well, at heart) about the cultural ideals we prize here.

Hell, more people die in Detroit in a month than in the entire COUNTRY of Iraq.

Come on, the war argument is old and worthless. In 2004 my company took 70-some odd percent casualties to advance seven or so blocks in Fallujah- just recently, they had a bicycle race through the city with Americans and Iraqis present, minus body armor. Beat that. The friends I've lost luckily, have not died in vain.

The problem is, we've forgotten that the media is a business, not a religious institution- CNN wants sponsors and an increased chunk of the cable t.v. money pool, and newspapers try to sell ads and influence their readers for the benefit of the Paper's investors ideals- Conservative, Liberal, Reublican, or Democrat. They are not Non-Profit organizations.

Last thing (I promise)- people lucky enough to live here and have a t.v., a computer, and the internet can't convince me that a woman thanking me in Arabic, holding her child, and standing on a street where people could start shooting basically at will, was doing it because she was just trying to suck up. How did I know what she was saying? Beacause her cousin, an Iraqi as well, was standing next to me, translating, and fighting alongside me to help his city.

Believe what you want, but please, not just because it was what you believed yesterday.

Semper Fidelis.

"...let's not ruin an otherwise pleasant day with unnecessary bloodshed..."

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:23 PM

I know you believe what you are doing is noble sir, and people who think the way that you do and believe what you do I could never hold a grudge against. You're out there doing your thing and bringing "Democracy" to the ignorant masses of the Middle East. Certainly you alone have done more for the cause of right in the world than any of our political leaders here could ever dream of.

I'm sure the world will be a better place when they're all masturbating to Afghani Idol every week and text messaging their friends about how funny the "Soup Nazi" episode of Saudifeld was last night.

It's called imperialism, my man. The very thing this country was formed to fight against originally. The very thing our forefathers said we had no business getting into. You boys and girls are over there fighting a war against people pre-emptively and meanwhile our country is being invaded by illegals from Mexico and nobody is doing a goddammed thing to stop it. By the time we finally bring the troops back, it won't even be their country anymore.

They don't want us there, imperialism is not our business, and quite frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of funding this "war" myself.

(You're new here, and if you haven't read any of my posts, I can be quite abrasive. I'm sure you're a great guy and we'd get along swell if the topic of conversation were a whole lot lighter than it gets here in the real world. As it were, your first post is something that I feel very strongly the other way about. Nothing personal, ya understand.)

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

KIRKULES

Sunday, January 6, 2008 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by USMCHellraiser:
About Iraq:

The American Military has done an excellent job there, and continues to do so...

Thanks for your service Hellraiser. It's because of guys like you I have been confident throughout the war that things will end good for Iraq. It's been tough at times to keep my optimistic attitude in face of the overwhelmingly negative media coverage. Thanks to a few talk radio hosts, the truth has been getting out. Despite what people in the media and on this site might say, the vast majority of the American people support you and the war. Those that support the war and those that don't both know that the only way the US can lose is if we give up. Because of this the anti-American media has tried their best to demoralize both you and me. Nice to hear it's not working on either front.

Grateful, Kirkukes

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 6, 2008 3:26 PM

Moi? Infuriating? I stick with the facts, man. And I'm mostly pretty reasonable. Now, YOU OTOH.....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 6, 2008 3:28 PM

Quote:
Hell, more people die in Detroit in a month than in the entire COUNTRY of Iraq.

I can't imagine how you came up with that.

THe problem is that while our armed forces- you included- may be idealists our fearless leaders are anything but. I have no bone to pick with you sir, but just watch what happens to Iraqi oil when all is said and done.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Sunday, January 6, 2008 9:02 PM

Finn

First of all, your facts - as usual - are wrong.

The Korean "War" wasn't a war. "In the United States, the conflict was officially termed a police action — the Korean Conflict — rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress."

And it didn't end in peace. "The two Koreas remain technically at war since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a cease-fire, not a peace treaty." http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2007/070531-iraq_rok-model.htm

So, if I get your argument right, you would see a divided Iraq, with one portion permanently housing US troops doing guard duty and still at war with 'insurgents' in other parts - as a success story.

And all because Bush said so - that Korea is a good model for Iraq. And you - without a thought to the fact that Korea is a divided country, at war, with an ongoing US presence patrolling the DMZ for over a half a century ! - went along with it !

he he he he he he he he he he ... I don't know what's funnier - Bush the moron using Korea as an example, or you the parrot repeating it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, January 6, 2008 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Hell, more people die in Detroit in a month than in the entire COUNTRY of Iraq.
I can't imagine how you came up with that.

THe problem is that while our armed forces- you included- may be idealists our fearless leaders are anything but. I have no bone to pick with you sir, but just watch what happens to Iraqi oil when all is said and done.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

Of course the standard of living is better in Detroit... maybe ? corrupt stooge politicians, lack of services, a majority of second class citizens living hand to mouth...

No wait, it is just like Detroit....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7147162.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F22B4D85-59F6-4778-8E9F-C15E7F1
CDB40.htm

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

RUE

Sunday, January 6, 2008 10:07 PM

"The slide has been quite steep and we must bring it up to the expectations that the people had after 35 years of dictatorship." Chalabi

The wording on this could have been better. It reminds me of a speech given by a one-time Mexican president that went (to paraphrase): "Last year we stood on the brink of a precipice. But today we've taken a great step forward."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, January 6, 2008 11:01 PM

No it's not.

Detroit has cable TV.

-F

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE