The US troop surge in Iraq has been accompanied by a similar surge in the amount of US funds devoted to Iraqi reconstruction.
By the end of 2006, Washington has provided $37.45bn to help rebuild
Iraqs shattered infastructure,value for money,or what.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6977728.stm

Being against the war is one thing, but if you view the humanitarian effort as falling short, your complaint should be with the rest of the world (start with the EU maybe).

Good one Brooks.Seperate the living conditions in Iraq from the war in Iraq,then blame someone else,I like it.

Brooks has a point. Stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq is in the interest of nearly the whole world, yet most countries have contibuted very little, if anything, to that effort.

The are two seperate things Paul, no need to be snide.

You don't have to support the war to help the people who have been hurt by it. Humanitarian crises always occur in war torn areas. Just because the US is responsible for this particular war doesn't preclude other nations from helping Iraqi citizens.

I don't see what you don't understand about this.

Well Brooks put it this way.To me sitting in Europe I say to myself,if the US President wants to invade Iraq,with NO evidence to justify the invasion,then spends billions of dollars trying to control and democracies that country,in the process killing thousands and destroying the infastructure,and someone asks me to put my hand in my pocket and donate to rebuilding Iraq,I would have to say the person asking is nuts.
Theres no need to be snide,your right.

Brooks has a point. Stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq is in the interest of nearly the whole world........

Brooks has no point whatsoever.

Had the current political leadership of this country not ---illegally and unethically and on the basis of a campaign of outright LIES-- chosen to bomb the nation of Iraq into utter ruin, there would be no need of the American taxpayers being charged to ""stabilize and rebuild"" that country.

Had the current political leadership of this country not ---illegally and unethically and on the basis of a campaign of outright LIES-- chosen to bomb the nation of Iraq into utter ruin, there would be no need of the American taxpayers being charged to ""stabilize and rebuild"" that country.Sure, but that's what happened and we now have a huge crisis in that country, the repercussions of which could potentially be felt worldwide. It's time the rest of the world came to that realization and played their part.

The rest of the world cant turn back time,if youd like help to rebuild Iraq look no further than this list below,who among them have stolen a hefty amount of the funds which were put aside for such purposes.
Haliburton
Houston
Texas.

Contrack International
Arlington
Virginia

Bechtal Corporation
San Francisco
California

Washington Group
Boise
Idaho

Perini Group
Washington DC

Research Triangle Institute
RTP
North Carolina

Louis Bergen Group
East Orange
New Jersey

Creative Assocations
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania

These organisations between them have recieved over $10bn to rebuild infastructure.

I'm always amused at the concern for iraqis shown by people opposed to the war. Where was that concern before the war? Why aren't you guys starting posts about darfur, organizing marches....?
Where's the outrage for events in Thailand and Algeria and Zimbabwe and all the other places in the world? A bunch of phonies.

I also like how people make bold-faced assertions and provide zero proof. That's an interesting way to make a point.

I'm always amused at the concern for iraqis shown by people opposed to the war. Where was that concern before the war? Why aren't you guys starting posts about darfur, organizing marches....?
Where's the outrage for events in Thailand and Algeria and Zimbabwe and all the other places in the world? A bunch of phonies.

Who said that the primary motivation was *concern for the people of Iraq*......?

Maybe it is out of concern that the war criminals who fomented this illegal war (and other military actions) stand in the International Court of Justice and answer for their crimes. Crimes such as using white phosphorus shells in a massive and indiscriminate way.

Being against the war is one thing, but if you view the humanitarian effort as falling short, your complaint should be with the rest of the world (start with the EU maybe).

How can you have a successful "humanitarian effort" until the "war" is over?

We won the "war" a long time ago but the right wing insists that the "war" is still going on in Iraq. One of the top priorities of any humanitarian effort in a war torn country is to stop the fighting.

And why complain to the bystanders instead of the people who started and insist on perpetuating the situation in Iraq? That makes no sense.

A new administration, without the agenda this one has in Iraq, might be able to garner more support from bystanders but this administration has no credibility whatsoever.

A new administration, without the agenda this one has in Iraq, might be able to garner more support from bystanders but this administration has no credibility whatsoever.So you think that the "bystanders'" dislike of this administration outweighs their humanitarian instincts?

I think so too, I'm just surprised by your uncharacteristic candor.

So you think that the "bystanders'" dislike of this administration outweighs their humanitarian instincts?

Negative.

I think that the bystanders knowledge and justified distrust of this administration prevents them from contributing to the continuing occupation and "war" just because the white house attempts to spin it as "humanitarian".

Nobody seems to be buying the bullshit except you.

:thumbs:
DB

I'm always amused at the concern for iraqis shown by people opposed to the war. Where was that concern before the war? Why aren't you guys starting posts about darfur, organizing marches....?
Where's the outrage for events in Thailand and Algeria and Zimbabwe and all the other places in the world? A bunch of phonies.

I also like how people make bold-faced assertions and provide zero proof. That's an interesting way to make a point.

I'm always amused that people who support our invasion of Iraq on the basis of Iraq's possession of invisible WMD's aren't screaming for us to invade countries that actually have them, such as North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. Where's the concern about those WMD's? Where's the outrage? A bunch of phonies.

Seriously waldo, your claim is just absurd. You are saying in effect that I can't be against one thing unless I'm also against another, and that's just silly.

I think that the bystanders knowledge and justified distrust of this administration prevents them from contributing to the continuing occupation and "war" just because the white house attempts to spin it as "humanitarian".
So is it that they don't believe there is a humanitarian effort or is it that it's too soon to attempt one?

You've made both claims.

So is it that they don't believe there is a humanitarian effort or is it that it's too soon to attempt one?

You've made both claims.

Brooks,

This goes back to my questions which you tried to ignore.

Allow me to repeat them and offer to clarify them if you need it:

How can you have a successful "humanitarian effort" until the "war" is over?

We won the "war" a long time ago but the right wing insists that the "war" is still going on in Iraq. One of the top priorities of any humanitarian effort in a war torn country is to stop the fighting.

And why complain to the bystanders instead of the people who started and insist on perpetuating the situation in Iraq? That makes no sense.

1. How can you have a successful "humanitarian effort" until the "war" is over?
We won the "war" a long time ago but the right wing insists that the "war" is still going on in Iraq.

2. One of the top priorities of any humanitarian effort in a war torn country is to stop the fighting.

3. And why complain to the bystanders instead of the people who started and insist on perpetuating the situation in Iraq? That makes no sense. 1. These two statements of yours seem to be in conflict.

2. No, that's certainly their sincerest wish, but it is usually out of the hands of those engaging in the aid effort.

3. This is where you're a little shaky, I think.
Is there humanitarian effort needed or isn't there?
You really make it sound as though one's feelings toward this administration should determine whether or not aid is offered to the people who need it.
It's almost as if some partisans would be a little disappointed if conditions improved.

I'm sure that's not how you feel, but your statements are certainly vulnerable to that interpretation.

Who said that the primary motivation was *concern for the people of Iraq*......?

Maybe it is out of concern that the war criminals who fomented this illegal war (and other military actions) stand in the International Court of Justice and answer for their crimes. Crimes such as using white phosphorus shells in a massive and indiscriminate way.

Then they wouldn't be talking about the economic decay and plight of iraqis would they.

I'm always amused that people who support our invasion of Iraq on the basis of Iraq's possession of invisible WMD's aren't screaming for us to invade countries that actually have them, such as North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. Where's the concern about those WMD's? Where's the outrage? A bunch of phonies.

Seriously waldo, your claim is just absurd. You are saying in effect that I can't be against one thing unless I'm also against another, and that's just silly.

If you'd been protesting iraq's treatment of it's citizens befoe the war you'd be in a better position to make your point. Suggesting you were truly concerned after the fact is a day late and a dollar short on the scale of truth.

The rest of the world cant turn back time,if youd like help to rebuild Iraq look no further than this list below,who among them have stolen a hefty amount of the funds which were put aside for such purposes.
Haliburton
Houston
Texas.

Contrack International
Arlington
Virginia

Bechtal Corporation
San Francisco
California

Washington Group
Boise
Idaho

Perini Group
Washington DC

Research Triangle Institute
RTP
North Carolina

Louis Bergen Group
East Orange
New Jersey

Creative Assocations
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania

These organisations between them have recieved over $10bn to rebuild infastructure. :thumbs:

I'm always amused that people who support our invasion of Iraq on the basis of Iraq's possession of invisible WMD's aren't screaming for us to invade countries that actually have them, such as North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel. Where's the concern about those WMD's? Where's the outrage? A bunch of phonies.

Seriously waldo, your claim is just absurd. You are saying in effect that I can't be against one thing unless I'm also against another, and that's just silly.

No,The " silliness " lies in the Inability to be anything utter
danny just For or Against something.
This is the Dilemna the Dimocrats have decidedly dug for themself.
To be Udderly and w/o ANY shame,AGAINST Literally Everything
with Bush's stamp of approval.
Brattiness comes to mind.

If you'd been protesting iraq's treatment of it's citizens befoe the war you'd be in a better position to make your point. Suggesting you were truly concerned after the fact is a day late and a dollar short on the scale of truth.

Just tell anyone who wants to diasgree with what Bill Clinton said,
in '98 or after about Saddam as a menacing threat and need for
possible ouster.
In utter woys,Bill did as usual.Talked the talk.
Bush actually DID in Iraq and TO Saddam,what Clinton only
yaked about.

If you'd been protesting iraq's treatment of it's citizens befoe the war you'd be in a better position to make your point. Suggesting you were truly concerned after the fact is a day late and a dollar short on the scale of truth.
Jesus waldo, that makes zero sense. The country is in a complete mess. Women and children are starving and dying. It is WORSE now for the general population than before Rambo went in there and blew everything away.

BEFORE was not the direct problem of the US as they hadn't ruined the whole infastructure of the country. Just placed a despot in power.

Your reasoning seems to be...well if you weren't concerned before, you should not be concerned now. Are you hearing how totally illogical that is?

ROFL!!

waldo pwned by a duck! :)

Jesus waldo, that makes zero sense. The country is in a complete mess. Women and children are starving and dying. It is WORSE now for the general population than before Rambo went in there and blew everything away.

BEFORE was not the direct problem of the US as they hadn't ruined the whole infastructure of the country. Just placed a despot in power.

Your reasoning seems to be...well if you weren't concerned before, you should not be concerned now. Are you hearing how totally illogical that is?

The point seems to have eluded you too. The only reason you care, or they care is because of politics, the left/right dichotomy. There are similar things and worse going on in other areas of the world and it gets no mention, no attention. You and the others couldn't give a damn about the sudanese in darfur or Zimbabweans (even though their future is infinitely worse than the iraqis) becase there are no political points to be scored.

Did we invade Zimbabwe?

I must have missed that.

1. These two statements of yours seem to be in conflict.

2. No, that's certainly their sincerest wish, but it is usually out of the hands of those engaging in the aid effort.

3. Is there humanitarian effort needed or isn't there?

4. It's almost as if some partisans would be a little disappointed if conditions improved.

5. I'm sure that's not how you feel, but your statements are certainly vulnerable to that interpretation.


1. Actually, you quoted a question and a statement, not two statements. And you still haven't answered the question. I don't see any conflict. You are going to have to explain yourself a little better than that.

2. Too bad that stopping the fighting is not the sincerest wish of the government that started and is perpetuating the fighting in Iraq. Because of that, the bystander nations you are complaining about have no reason to work with said government on humanitarian aid, since the single most effective humanitarian act would be to stop the fighting which is the one thing that said government is refusing to do. That is like complaining because we didn't work closer with Idi Amin on humanitarian efforts in Uganda.

3. Of course there is. There are over 2 million Iraqi refugees from the fighting that have flooded their neighbors. As I said the single most effective act of humanitarian aid would be to stop the fighting, but that is the one thing that certain partisans refuse to do for purely political, not humanitarian, reasons.

4. As I said, some partisans are against ending the fighting caused by the military occupation of Iraq.

5. So in other words, you admit that you are making up what you know are untrue interpretations of everything I say. That is neither reasonable nor justified.

:thumbs:
DB

P.S. You still haven't answered my questions.

1. Actually, you quoted a question and a statement, not two statements.
2. ......since the single most effective humanitarian act would be to stop the fighting which is the one thing that said government is refusing to do.
3. That is like complaining because we didn't work closer with Idi Amin on humanitarian efforts in Uganda.
4. As I said, some partisans are against ending the fighting caused by the military occupation of Iraq.
5. So in other words, you admit that you are making up what you know are untrue interpretations of everything I say. That is neither reasonable nor justified.
6. P.S. You still haven't answered my questions.
1. No, not really.
I asked why other countries aren't involved with humanitarian aid and you asked "How can you have a successful "humanitarian effort" until the "war" is over?"
So yes, I suppose you can pretend you weren't making a statement there and hide behind the question mark if you like, but in this context you are clearly making the statement that there is a war going on.
Which is in conflict with your statement that the war has been won already.

2. And have everyone love each other and plant flowers.
That would be nice, but humanitarian planners are more realistic than that and must often work in areas while wars are still raging.

3. No it's not. Idi Amin would not have allowed or accepted the help.
Re-tool that analogy.

4. Who are you talking about?

5. You're being a little Dhramatic again. I said "I'm sure that's not how you feel, but your statements are certainly vulnerable to that interpretation."
I think that was extremely mild on my part. And even a little sympathetic to your occasional inarticulate and ambiguous expression.

6. Repeat them. I don't remember.

1. No, not really.
I asked why other countries aren't involved with humanitarian aid and you asked "How can you have a successful "humanitarian effort" until the "war" is over?"

Yes, a question you have yet to answer.


So yes, I suppose you can pretend you weren't making a statement there and hide behind the question mark if you like,

My question was asked from the perspective of you right wingers, presupposing that there is a "war" going on in Iraq. Was that question too complex? Should I try to keep it simpler from now on? Be honest, I am just trying to help you comprehend.

I notice you are still hiding behind the straw man of whether I asked a question or made a statement to avoid actually addressing the question itself.

That says a lot about you.


but in this context you are clearly making the statement that there is a war going on.

No, actually that it a lie on your part. You are making up that straw man argument instead of actually addressing the question I asked you. I notice that is a very common tactic for you Brooks. Why is that?

If you are asking my opinion about what is going on, the answer would be that obviously we have a military occupation of Iraq which is inspiring an insurgency and creating a lawless atmosphere that allows sectarian violence.

This is just from this week in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070908/ts_nm/iraq_dc_54;_ylt=ArPOpOBnBBtSeYnaopi.CpAE1vAI):
Bombs killed 20 people in Iraq on Saturday, including 15 in Baghdad, police said, as U.S. President George W. Bush said his resolve to press on with the job of stabilizing Iraq was as strong as ever. Police said a parked car exploded near a police station in Baghdad’s Shi’ite area of Sadr City at dusk, when people were shopping. The blast killed 15 people and wounded 45, they said. Another explosion at a market in the holy Shi’ite town of Kufa, possibly caused by a roadside bomb, killed five people and wounded eight, police said.


Regarding my comment that the single most effective humanitarian act would be to stop the fighting by ending the military occupation of Iraq, you replied:

And have everyone love each other and plant flowers.

Who is being "dhramatic"? :rolleyes:

By the way,
That was another straw man argument.
See what I mean?
common tactic with you.


That would be nice, but humanitarian planners are more realistic than that and must often work in areas while wars are still raging.

They do? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3252723.stm)
I think the problem is that you misunderstand the reality of the situation. Humanitarian workers do not want to die and they do not walk about while the bullets are flying and the bombs are going off.

The International Committee of the Red Cross is temporarily ending its operations in much of Iraq amid concerns over the safety of its staff.

ICRC spokesman Florian Westphal said their Baghdad and Basra offices were closing given "the extremely dangerous and volatile situation" in the country.


Idi Amin would not have allowed or accepted the help.

Unless it was convenient for him. The rhetoric before the invasion of Iraq was that the U.N. was "irrelevant" and we would "go it alone if necessary" before the invasion, but now that things have gotten completely out of hand this same administration and its hypocritical supporters are looking to other nations and practically demanding their help without even so much as acknowledging that they were wrong in the first place.


5. You're being a little Dhramatic again.

And you are being hypocritical and intellectually dishonest...again.


I said "I'm sure that's not how you feel, but your statements are certainly vulnerable to that interpretation."

Yes and I pointed out the fact that you admit that you are making up what you know are untrue interpretations of everything I say. (i.e. straw-man arguments)

I also think I was being mild.


6. Repeat them. I don't remember.

That is an odd claim considering you just quoted one of them a moment before.

I am beginning to see a definite pattern of intellectual dishonesty from you Brooks.

And I feel disappointed in you.

Here are the questions you have yet to answer.
1. How can you have a successful "humanitarian effort" until the "war" is over?

(Disclaimer for the obtuse - I am not stating that there is a war going on in Iraq, I am acknowledging that the right wing thinks there is a war going on in Iraq.)

2. And why complain to the bystanders instead of the people who started and insist on perpetuating the situation in Iraq?

:thumbs:
DB

Look how much of what you typed up there is not meaningful to the discussion. There's name calling, repetition, etc.....

You make a statement, then when you get caught up in it you dhramatically reveal that it "was asked from the perspective of you right wingers."
How convenient.

I appreciate you taking my advice to re-tool the Idi Amin analogy. Nice try but it still falls short.


Right now, fifteen of the eighteen provinces in Iraq are free from the direct effects of the war. People still need help there due to the war's more indirect effects, but they are not dangerous places to be.
Also, relief efforts can stem from there or those areas can be used as dissemination points.
There are also relief organizations that other nations can support.

Don't make the argument that the relief effort is not possible because there is a war going on. Nations and individuals that would normally support such a thing have, as I said, put their dislike of this administration before their concern for those affected.

Brooks and Waldo,whats your beef here?
With the amout of money poured into Iraq on a monthly basis,why would any person or nation want to fund humanitarian causes,which are a direct result of military action by the richest country in the world.
Thats not politics,thats economics.

1. Brooks and Waldo,whats your beef here?
...why would any person or nation want to fund humanitarian causes,which are a direct result of military action by the richest country in the world.
2. Thats not politics,thats economics.
1. So what you're saying is that certain people in need are thought to be less deserving depending on how you feel about how they got that way.
What do your words mean to people who are suffering in Iraq? Are they less deserving than those in Darfur, in your opinion?

2. You're wrong.

1. So what you're saying is that certain people in need are thought to be less deserving depending on how you feel about how they got that way.
What do your words mean to people who are suffering in Iraq? Are they less deserving than those in Darfur, in your opinion?
No they're not less deserving,nobody has a monopoly on suffering.

2. You're wrong.
No Brooks,Im right.If the US wants to squander its money on right wing Imperialism in the middle east then it should pick up its own tab,as you mentioned yourself,theres needy everywhere.

Brooks,

For the record, you have still yet to answer my questions. Obviously you are unwilling to go near them because you know they blow holes in your "argument". (such as it is)

Look how much of what you typed up there is not meaningful to the discussion.

Everything I typed is meaningful to the discussion, including the examination of your straw-man tactic. Obviously I have hit on yet more topics you are unwilling and unable to address.
That happens a lot with you and it says a lot about you.


There's name calling, repetition, etc.....

There was no name calling, only accurate labels of your tactics and the repetition is a reflection of your repeated straw man arguments.



You make a statement, then when you get caught up in it you dhramatically reveal that it "was asked from the perspective of you right wingers."
How convenient.

Obviously you are incapable of understanding what I considered a simple question, so you resorted to your standard tactic of making up straw-man arguments instead. You still cannot address the question even after I clarified it so a child could understand it.


Right now, fifteen of the eighteen provinces in Iraq are free from the direct effects of the war.

Lets examine this specious claim, shall we? Do you have any evidence to support this claim or are you making it up like you have most things in this discussion? First you need to define what you mean by "direct effects of the war". Do you mean that there are provinces that are not under U.S. military occupation? (since that is what is really going on anyway)


People still need help there due to the war's more indirect effects, but they are not dangerous places to be.

Not dangerous?!? Allow me to refresh your apparently faulty memory:

Bombs killed 20 people in Iraq on Saturday, including 15 in Baghdad, police said, as U.S. President George W. Bush said his resolve to press on with the job of stabilizing Iraq was as strong as ever. Police said a parked car exploded near a police station in Baghdad’s Shi’ite area of Sadr City at dusk, when people were shopping. The blast killed 15 people and wounded 45, they said. Another explosion at a market in the holy Shi’ite town of Kufa, possibly caused by a roadside bomb, killed five people and wounded eight, police said.



Also, relief efforts can stem from there or those areas can be used as dissemination points.
There are also relief organizations that other nations can support.

What do you mean by "relief efforts" exactly?
Why can't we do it? Why do you need to demand other nations do it when we have already poured billions into "rebuilding" Iraq?


Don't make the argument that the relief effort is not possible because there is a war going on.

Obviously I would not do that since I have already repeatedly told you that there is no war in Iraq, only a military occupation that is inspiring an insurgency and creating a lawless environment that allows for rampant sectarian violence.


Nations and individuals that would normally support such a thing have, as I said, put their dislike of this administration before their concern for those affected.

As ususal you are just being a dhrama-queen. You have yet to provide even a shred of evidence that other nations are not supporting relief agencies.

You need to be more specific about exactly who you are referring to and exactly what you think they should be doing instead of all this overly-dhramatic pretense of feigned indignity over unspecified accusations.


:thumbs:
DB

You're wrong.

Brooks, you need to learn to differentiate between reality and your own unsubstantiated opinions.

Telling people they are "wrong" just because they don't agree with your unsubstantiated opinions is lazy and rude in the extreme and unworthy of someone of your intelligence.

:thumbs:
DB

Brooks and Waldo,whats your beef here?
With the amout of money poured into Iraq on a monthly basis,why would any person or nation want to fund humanitarian causes,which are a direct result of military action by the richest country in the world.
Thats not politics,thats economics.

My beef is you pretending you give half a toss about the iraqis.

As further proof, you suggest that all are deserving except those stung by 'imperialism.' That's truly a humanitarian pov.:rolleyes:

My beef is you pretending you give half a toss about the iraqis.
Im always concerned for disadvantaged people.

As further proof, you suggest that all are deserving except those stung by 'imperialism.' That's truly a humanitarian pov.:rolleyes:The sad thing here is that not one of you glory boys have shown concern for the Iraqi people,just as long as the violence can be reduced to a level were US troops can leave looking good,thats all matters tyou people,ya wanna be ashamed of yourselves.

The point seems to have eluded you too. The only reason you care, or they care is because of politics, the left/right dichotomy. There are similar things and worse going on in other areas of the world and it gets no mention, no attention. You and the others couldn't give a damn about the sudanese in darfur or Zimbabweans (even though their future is infinitely worse than the iraqis) becase there are no political points to be scored.
Waldo there was no "point" to elude me as no point was made. There was an accusation made. It is unfounded. Merely a meaningless stab in the dark. Death is not about political point scores. But if this were about political point scores you are still at zero. Your attempt to divert is sad at best.

The sad thing here is that not one of you glory boys have shown concern for the Iraqi people,just as long as the violence can be reduced to a level were US troops can leave looking good,thats all matters tyou people,ya wanna be ashamed of yourselves.
Interesting observation since the very thing he accuses others of is perhaps his failing.

Im always concerned for disadvantaged people.

Sure you do, that's why you've got all those posts about darfur and zimbabwe and thailand and afghanistan and .....:rolleyes: YOur empathy is boundless.

The sad thing here is that not one of you glory boys have shown concern for the Iraqi people,just as long as the violence can be reduced to a level were US troops can leave looking good,thats all matters tyou people,ya wanna be ashamed of yourselves.

Pulling out would be the easy thing to do. And in the end it may be the best thing to do, as long as we understand that more will die as a result. And that's OK with you too isn't it?

Waldo there was no "point" to elude me as no point was made. There was an accusation made. It is unfounded. Merely a meaningless stab in the dark. Death is not about political point scores. But if this were about political point scores you are still at zero. Your attempt to divert is sad at best.

It's one accusation to match another.

YOu think it's unfounded. Show me the posts where you or any of your ilk have pointed out the suffering going on in darfur, zimbabwe etc. Better yet offer your 'solution to those issues'.

It's not about politics? Better check the title of the section the thread is located in.

My beef is you pretending you give half a toss about the iraqis.

And you would have us believe that you do? :rolleyes:


Pulling out would be the easy thing to do. And in the end it may be the best thing to do, as long as we understand that more will die as a result. And that's OK with you too isn't it?

We know that more people will die if we continue to occupy Iraq. Thats ok with you though, isn't it?

We know that more people will die if we continue to occupy Iraq.
I have yet to hear a good explanation of how our occupation is what causes the violence in Iraq, and how our withdrawal will stop it.

Sure you do, that's why you've got all those posts about darfur and zimbabwe and thailand and afghanistan and .....:rolleyes: YOur empathy is boundless.Yeah I do,but I was talking to Americans about an American made situation.
If you wanna talk about Afghanistan start a thread,but as your questioning my integraty,we'll play away here.



Pulling out would be the easy thing to do. And in the end it may be the best thing to do, as long as we understand that more will die as a result. And that's OK with you too isn't it?Waldo wake up will ya,Ive said all along that it was a mistake to go in and its a make to get out,by the way,as we speak,the start of the end of US military involvement in Iraq is under way at your Congress hearing.

And you would have us believe that you do? :rolleyes:
I'm not the one pretending to care.


[/QUOTE]We know that more people will die if we continue to occupy Iraq. Thats ok with you though, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

If the benefits of leaving, for both the US and the iraqis, were readily apparent the arguement would be self-evident. That no one can make the case that things would be better if the US left immediately says it all.

Yeah I do,but I was talking to Americans about an American made situation.
So you say.

If you wanna talk about Afghanistan start a thread,but as your questioning my integraty,we'll play away here.
Given the deep humanitarian concern etched in these posts i would think you'd be posting about the horrors of the taliban et al and the lack of the world's commitment to solving problems in afghanistan, no?



Waldo wake up will ya,Ive said all along that it was a mistake to go in and its a make to get out,by the way,as we speak,the start of the end of US military involvement in Iraq is under way at your Congress hearing.

It's a mistake to go in, amistake to get out so let's start another post about the evil US. Gotcha!:thumbs:

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The surge, from the beginning, was designed to be short-term. It's the definition of the word.

I'm not the one pretending to care.

Good for you for having the intellectual honesty to admit that you do not care one whit about the Iraqi people.

That is more honesty than some other people have been showing here lately.



If the benefits of leaving, for both the US and the iraqis, were readily apparent the arguement would be self-evident. That no one can make the case that things would be better if the US left immediately says it all.


The argument is between the known - that our military occupation is causing the insurgency and violence in Iraq.
And the unknown - what the consequences would be if we ended our military occupation of Iraq.

Given what we know it seem perfectly reasonable to assume that ending the occupation would be more beneficial in the long run.

I have yet to hear a good explanation of how our occupation is what causes the violence in Iraq,

Question for you.

If China invaded and occupied America today to "liberate" us from the Bush regime, would you passively accept their occupation or would you be out in the streets fighting them?

I would be out fighting them.

I look forward to your answer, especially since you claim to be unable to understand how a military occupation by a foreign power could possibly cause violence.

:thumbs:
DB

So you say.Yea I do,apart from myself and a handful of others,all you guys are yanks.


Given the deep humanitarian concern etched in these posts i would think you'd be posting about the horrors of the taliban et al and the lack of the world's commitment to solving problems in afghanistan, no?Thats a maybe,tho my thoughts on Afghanistan are totally different than they are on Iraq.

It's a mistake to go in, amistake to get out so let's start another post about the evil US. Gotcha!:thumbs: Got me what?
Its obvious to everyone except the Republican glory boys that invading Iraq was a mistake,to leave now is putting a death sentence on thousands more Iraqis needlessly,once again US domestic politics is being played out with foreign lives.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The surge, from the beginning, was designed to be short-term. It's the definition of the word.Of course the 'surge' is a short term policy,but its designed to numb the insurgency long enough for the troops to pack up and go.

Good for you for having the intellectual honesty to admit that you do not care one whit about the Iraqi people.

That is more honesty than some other people have been showing here lately.

Don't overeach. I merely said i wasn't the one pretending.




The argument is between the known - that our military occupation is causing the insurgency and violence in Iraq.

That's an assumption. If it were demonstrably true as a broad rule then the turning of the tribes to the US wouldn't exist. If it were true you wouldn't see people passing tips re the mahdi army.

And the unknown - what the consequences would be if we ended our military occupation of Iraq.

Given what we know it seem perfectly reasonable to assume that ending the occupation would be more beneficial in the long run.

Hardly, you've stated nothing about the impact of AQI or Iran or the sectarian conflict. Until you can quantify them you're just guessing with the rest of us.

Don't overeach. I merely said i wasn't the one pretending.

I can only go by what you say and you said you don't even pretend to give one whit about the Iraqis.

Quit flip-flopping all over the place and pick a position, would you?



That's an assumption.

No, it is a simple fact.
It is common knowledge based upon common sense.



Hardly, you've stated nothing about the impact of AQI or Iran or the sectarian conflict. Until you can quantify them you're just guessing with the rest of us.

Since "AQI" and the "Iranian threat" are just products of the White House propaganda machine, they are irrelivent as far as I am concerned.

You are supporting an irrational and increasingly unpopular position that we should continue our military occupation of Iraq for purely political reasons.

You already admitted you don't give a whit about the Iraqi people.

:thumbs:
DB

Question for you.

If China invaded and occupied America today to "liberate" us from the Bush regime, would you passively accept their occupation or would you be out in the streets fighting them?

I would be out fighting them.
Perhaps I should have specified that I was talking about the sectarian violence in Iraq, which is currently the cause of the majority of violent deaths in that country.

So let's try this again... how are we the cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq and how will our withdrawal stop it?

I look forward to your answer, especially since you claim to be unable to understand how a military occupation by a foreign power could possibly cause violence. I didn't claim shit about not being able to understand. Stop puttting words in my mouth.

... You already admitted you don't give a whit about the Iraqi people. ...

Like you do? In all of your posts, you've yet to do anything but complain and present an arrogant, condescending attitude toward virtually every poster with the guile to challenge you.

Like you do?

Yes, I can honestly say I do.

Do you?


In all of your posts, you've yet to do anything but complain and present an arrogant, condescending attitude toward virtually every poster with the guile to challenge you.

If that were true it would be something you and I would have in common.
:rolleyes:

It's one accusation to match another.

YOu think it's unfounded. Show me the posts where you or any of your ilk have pointed out the suffering going on in darfur, zimbabwe etc. Better yet offer your 'solution to those issues'.

It's not about politics? Better check the title of the section the thread is located in.
HA you want me to dig around for you to find said posts (which by the way do exist since over the years I remember such discussions) and that will prove to you that I (someone whom you know zero about) personally care about those starving masses. OMG:rolleyes: Surely you jest sir?

This argument carried along by you has decended into the ridiculous. Have a nice evening.

how are we the cause of the sectarian violence in Iraq

Lets see... we bombed the "shock and awe" out of them, destroyed much of their infrastructure, invaded them, toppled their government, dissolved their military, dissolved their police, fired tens of thousands of government employees, the new Iraqi national police have been implicated in numerous sectarian killings, there are over 2 million refugees from Iraq flooding their neighbors, the unemployment rate in Iraq is around 50%, power is still sporadic at best, the Failed States Index lists Iraq as the world's #2 most unstable country... In short, we created the conditions that allow the sectarian violence to be possible.


and how will our withdrawal stop it?

It is not that our withdrawal will stop the violence, it is that the violence cannot stop while our troops are still there as an occupying force. The end of our military occupation is just one of the things that must happen before the violence can stop for good.

The Iraqi people will never step up and take responsibility so long as they believe that we will be there indefinitely to do it for them. The security situation in Al-Anbar province did not improve because we had a troop escalation (surge) in Baghdad. It improved because the citizens of that province rose up and drove the foreign insurgents out of their midst (which didn't happen until after we started talking publicly about pulling out of that province.)

...Right now, fifteen of the eighteen provinces in Iraq are free from the direct effects of the war...

Interesting isn't it how people ignore the good news and concentrate on the bad? It's also interesting to note that at least 11 of these fifteen are restricting movement into their provinces. Their governments know only too well that it's basically a three way fight going on in the region around Baghdad, Sunni vs Shia vs Terrorists.

Interesting isn't it how people ignore the good news and concentrate on the bad?

Or vice versa... :thumbs:

I can only go by what you say and you said you don't even pretend to give one whit about the Iraqis.

Quit flip-flopping all over the place and pick a position, would you?

Still working on that matchbox remedial reading comprehension course i see. Third time lucky they say. I said nothing about my position or thoughts.





No, it is a simple fact.
It is common knowledge based upon common sense.
It's as much a fact as the statement that the US presence inhibits the violence. Which is to say that while both may be true neither shed any greater light upon the situation. Unless it can be quantified it's of no value. As i said before if it were self-evident,like gravity, we'd all agree.




Since "AQI" and the "Iranian threat" are just products of the White House propaganda machine, they are irrelivent as far as I am concerned.

Your position demands you reject them. Any recognition of them undermines your postion.
Categorical rejections of this nature make it very difficult to take you seriously. Only idiots and fools doubt the presence of AQI or Iran in iraq.

You are supporting an irrational and increasingly unpopular position that we should continue our military occupation of Iraq for purely political reasons.
Given that i haven't stated what i support atpit it's unclear how you've come to this conclusion. Are you taking internet mind-reading courses from the back of matchboxes as well?

You already admitted you don't give a whit about the Iraqi people.

:thumbs:
DB

Where was that?

Lets see... we bombed the "shock and awe" out of them, destroyed much of their infrastructure, invaded them, toppled their government, dissolved their military, dissolved their police, fired tens of thousands of government employees, the new Iraqi national police have been implicated in numerous sectarian killings, there are over 2 million refugees from Iraq flooding their neighbors, the unemployment rate in Iraq is around 50%, power is still sporadic at best, the Failed States Index lists Iraq as the world's #2 most unstable country... In short, we created the conditions that allow the sectarian violence to be possible.

You made a nice laundry list but haven't drawn the connection.
How does that reconcile with the sunni aligning themselves with the US to drive out AQI from their midst? Why doesn't maliki or the parliament(?) ask us to leave?




It is not that our withdrawal will stop the violence, it is that the violence cannot stop while our troops are still there as an occupying force. The end of our military occupation is just one of the things that must happen before the violence can stop for good.
So the violence can end when the US is there as peace-making force?

The Iraqi people will never step up and take responsibility so long as they believe that we will be there indefinitely to do it for them. The security situation in Al-Anbar province did not improve because we had a troop escalation (surge) in Baghdad. It improved because the citizens of that province rose up and drove the foreign insurgents out of their midst (which didn't happen until after we started talking publicly about pulling out of that province.)

The iraqis are stepping up fine, just not at a pace you can understand or can tolerate. Anbar improved when the US decided to assist the tribes in outing AQ. If the tribes could have done it on their own they would have. They needed the US to provide the muscle, the locals provided the intelligence.

It's as much a fact as the statement that the US presence inhibits the violence.

That claim just doesn't pass the logic test. The violence did not exist before we invaded and our presence has not stopped the violence in 5 years.

As i said before if it were self-evident,like gravity, we'd all agree.

Hence the discussion here on this discussion board.


Your position demands you reject them. Any recognition of them undermines your postion.

Well... since I just clearly stated that my position is that I reject them as propaganda, this has to be one of the most useless and redundant statements you have ever made.

And for the record your hypocritical-ness, your position demands that you reject obvious truths, such as that we already won the war in Iraq and it is now a military occupation.



Given that i haven't stated what i support atpit it's unclear how you've come to this conclusion.

Inference based upon what you have said, that you do not claim to care about the Iraqis. You made a statement and now you are running in circles to avoid taking responsibility for it or even denying it outright.


You remind me of the old saying, "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."

:thumbs:
DB

You made a nice laundry list but haven't drawn the connection.

I have, but you are a serial denier.


How does that reconcile with the sunni aligning themselves with the US to drive out AQI from their midst?

That is a falsehood. "AQI" is a myth born of the propaganda dept. The success in Al Anbar was diplomatic, not military.


Why doesn't maliki or the parliament(?) ask us to leave?

They have. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/iraqis-call-for-timetable/)

Hyper-partisans such as yourself refuse to listen.



So the violence can end when the US is there as peace-making force?

Putting to end the propaganda that we are still "at war in Iraq" would be an acceptable first step.


The iraqis are stepping up fine, just not at a pace you can understand or can tolerate.

I understand better than you. You are probably the only person ignorant enough to actually claim they are "stepping up fine".


Anbar improved when the US decided to assist the tribes in outing AQ.

Incorrect.
Anbar improved when the Sunnis agreed to work with US Forces, because of diplomatic successes. The success in Anbar is attributed to the locals, not to the Americans, otherwise you would see that everywhere we place a few troops, which clearly we are not.

:thumbs:
DB

That claim just doesn't pass the logic test. The violence did not exist before we invaded and our presence has not stopped the violence in 5 years.

What are the current precipitators of violence? AQI, Baathist rejectionists of the current gov't, iranian sponsored militias and a criminal element. In what way would the departure of the US minimize the violence.

Hence the discussion here on this discussion board. Exactly, that's why your claim that leaving would lessen the violence is not self-evident nor is automatically the better one.

Well... since I just clearly stated that my position is that I reject them as propaganda, this has to be one of the most useless and redundant statements you have ever made.

On the one hand you think that the sunni tribes joining the US to fight AQ deserves no credit (they were doing it on their own), while holding that AQI is merely a political propanda ploy. Hmmmmm. How does that reconcile with what the tribes say about AQI? Reading their comments they were anything but incidental to the violence.

Are you telling us that iran has no role in iraq whatsoever in iraq? How do you know this? Proof.

And for the record your hypocritical-ness, your position demands that you reject obvious truths, such as that we already won the war in Iraq and it is now a military occupation.
On the contrary, i readily acknowledge the war against Hussein has already been won. I readily and fully acknowledge mission creep.

That's the difference between the two of us. When facts appear, not interpretations or rhetoric but actual facts i will readily acknowledge and adjust my positionaccordingly. When facts, such as the ones Petraeus uses, appear you dismiss them as propaganda. So far neither you nor any of your colleagues have offered anything more than rhetoric.

Inference based upon what you have said, that you do not claim to care about the Iraqis. You made a statement and now you are running in circles to avoid taking responsibility for it or even denying it outright.
An inference, an assumption. You know what they say about assumptions, they make an ass (out of ) u.
We can both claim to care about iraqis and disagree about how their needs might best be served by staying or going. But starting posts which are nothing more than gratuitous cheap shots to advance a holier than thou attitude, which is what paul did, deserve to be addressed appropriately.

I have, but you are a serial denier.
NO you've got a laundry list of issues that doesn't draw any connections It asks us to draw inferences which is decidedly different.

That is a falsehood. "AQI" is a myth born of the propaganda dept. The success in Al Anbar was diplomatic, not military.
There is no AQ in iraq? Who's been cutting off heads, blowing up shia and yahzidis.... Who have the anbar tribes been fighting?

Ghosts ?



They have. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/09/iraqis-call-for-timetable/)

Hyper-partisans such as yourself refuse to listen.

You might want to re-read your own article. It states that one man made that claim and one man said more than half had signed on. Unfortunately your draft bill never received enough votes to be acted on. IOW meaningless.


[Putting to end the propaganda that we are still "at war in Iraq" would be an acceptable first step.

And how would that change any attitudes in iraq?

[I understand better than you. You are probably the only person ignorant enough to actually claim they are "stepping up fine".

Not just me, the military too.



[Incorrect.
Anbar improved when the Sunnis agreed to work with US Forces, because of diplomatic successes. The success in Anbar is attributed to the locals, not to the Americans, otherwise you would see that everywhere we place a few troops, which clearly we are not.

You might want to check your history. There has been ongoing fighting between the tribes and AQ for more than a year. The military noted it but would not support those fighting against AQI. The tribes had little success in defeating AQ. It was only when the tribes repeatedly came forward to the marines and the marines, deparate to redeem anbar decided to help that AQ was put on the run. You can see Fouad Adjami's article in yesterdays WSJ. ONe of the telling quotes from an iraqi in the article was "the tribes never win wars, they merely join the winners." I can give you tonnes of sources on this issue if you'd like.

What are the current precipitators of violence?

They are as follows:

1. Sectarian violence between ethnic groups competeing for power.
2. Insurgents rebelling against our military occupation of their country.
3. crime due to the lack of effective law enforcement.
4. foreign fighters looking to attack Americans - What you erroneously call "AQI".

You have not a shred of proof that any of the foreign fighters in Iraq are actually Al Queda. You are merely parroting the propaganda from the white house... as usual.



On the one hand you think that the sunni tribes joining the US to fight AQ deserves no credit

You are quite wrong. I said they deserve a great deal of credit. You are the one trying to take credit for their successes.



On the contrary, i readily acknowledge the war against Hussein has already been won. I readily and fully acknowledge mission creep.

I categorically deny that there is any "mission creep' whatsoever in Iraq.
There has just been a lot of bungling by neoconservative idiots.

:thumbs:
DB

NO you've got a laundry list of issues that doesn't draw any connections It asks us to draw inferences which is decidedly different.

Obviously the truth of the situation is that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious connections between our actions and the conditions on the ground today. That is blind hyper-partisanship on your part.



Who's been cutting off heads, blowing up shia and yahzidis.... Who have the anbar tribes been fighting?

Foreign fighters. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that they are all al queda.



You might want to re-read your own article.

Ok:
On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq’s parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal



Not just me, the military too.

Proof?



I can give you tonnes of sources on this issue if you'd like.

That would be a pleasant change to your usual unsubstantiated claims.

:thumbs:
DB

They are as follows:

1. Sectarian violence between ethnic groups competeing for power.
2. Insurgents rebelling against our military occupation of their country.
3. crime due to the lack of effective law enforcement.
4. foreign fighters looking to attack Americans - What you erroneously call "AQI".

You have not a shred of proof that any of the foreign fighters in Iraq are actually Al Queda. You are merely parroting the propaganda from the white house... as usual.

that's a nice restatement of my list without answering the question (what else is new) about how the US' departure would reduce the violence from these groups.

Sure i do here's a link to an AQI website. It talks about the reduction in number of attacks they've been able to mount since the surge started. It's a forum just like this one. They refer to themselves as AQI.
http://www.alekhlaas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=76584

Seems like everyone thinks AQI exists, except you.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-07/05/content_911027.htm
http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=2062
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22367939.htm



You are quite wrong. I said they deserve a great deal of credit. You are the one trying to take credit for their successes.
It's definitely a joint success. But your claim that the tribes are responsible doesn't hold water.

Sure i do here's a link to an AQI website. It talks about the reduction in number of attacks they've been able to mount since the surge started. It's a forum just like this one. They refer to themselves as AQI.
http://www.alekhlaas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=76584

So all it takes for you to believe that someone is Al queda is for them to claim it on an internet forum?

That is an extremely weak standard. Sorry, it just doesn't pass the logic test either.


Seems like everyone thinks AQI exists, except you.

A lot of people believe in Bigfoot too. Does that mean he definately exists?

So all it takes for you to believe that someone is Al queda is for them to claim it on an internet forum?

That is an extremely weak standard. Sorry, it just doesn't pass the logic test either.



A lot of people believe in Bigfoot too. Does that mean he definately exists?

This is all you've got?

The crux of your arguement is that violence will decrease if only the US were to leave and you can't even tell us how or why?

You don't have an arguement son.

This is all you've got?

That is exactly what I have been saying about your "arguments".


The crux of your arguement is that violence will decrease if only the US were to leave

Wrong.

Once again, my point is that the violence cannot decrease until after our troops are pulled out. Not that the pullout will cause the decrease. That is a lie on your part.

And the generals all agree with me. They have consistently said that there is no military solution to Iraq, only political.


You don't have an arguement son.

I do, but you seem incapable of comprehending it.

Here is a piece of advice for you Waldo:
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

.

That is exactly what I have been saying about your "arguments".

Given that my arguement has been asking you to explain your arguement you seem to be chasing your tail again.




Wrong.

Once again, my point is that the violence cannot decrease until after our troops are pulled out. Not that the pullout will cause the decrease. That is a lie on your part.

A distinction without a difference. Nonetheless, and asking for the fourth time, will you explain (or not) how or why your assertion is true. Three times, going for a fourth?
And the generals all agree with me. They have consistently said that there is no military solution to Iraq, only political.
The generals have said nothing about withdrawal. That you think they have is merely another exhibit in a long list that you have a reading comprehension issue. If you think they have show me where 'the generals' have linked a political solution to withdrawal.

I do, but you seem incapable of comprehending it.

Here is a piece of advice for you Waldo:
"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

.

Making assertions does not constitute an arguement. Making assertions and establishing their validity with citations (facts or quotes or experts) is how you make an arguement. So far you are up to zero facts in support, zero quotes cited, zero experts cited.
Tell you what when i need advice from you, i'll fart and you come running.

Given that my arguement has been asking you to explain your arguement you seem to be chasing your tail again.


Given that I have explained and re-explained my argument to you at least three times and all you have done is continue to misrepresent my argument, it is clear you are purposely refusing to understand.

Therefore you are purposely wasting my time for no reason.

I am done with you.

Have a nice day!

Yeah i understand it's your opinion. I keep asking you for the basis of said opinion.

Why?

Is it a ouija board, something you came up with on the basis of a dream you had, the follow on from a night of binging with a crack addict?

Is there any factual basis for your opinion?

I am done with you.
As is pretty much everyone else with you.

Dharma – you'd give Tylenol a headache.

Yeah i understand it's your opinion.

That is exactly the point. You do not understand. You stubbornly refuse to understand.

All you have done is created a straw man and claimed, falsely, that it is my opinion when in fact it is not.

Until such time as you can actually re-state my real opinion back to me, you are not worth wasting time on.

As is pretty much everyone else with you.


And yet here you are responding to me. :rolleyes:

That is exactly the point. You do not understand. You stubbornly refuse to understand.

All you have done is created a straw man and claimed, falsely, that it is my opinion when in fact it is not.

Until such time as you can actually re-state my real opinion back to me, you are not worth wasting time on.

So it's not your opinion that violence can or will decrease only when the US leaves?:eek:

So it's not your opinion that violence can or will decrease only when the US leaves?

Try again.

this time how about if you go back and actually read what I wrote.

:thumbs:
DB

What's the difference between what you've saidmy point is that the violence cannot decrease until after our troops are pulled out
and what i've offered The crux of your arguement is that violence will decrease if only the US were to leave ?

Those are the actual quotes so no misrepresentation.

So for the sixth time why, what is the basis for your beleif, that violence cannot decrease until after our troops are pulled out.

How or why will the US's departure change or alter the four instigators of violence in iraq?

What's the difference between what you've said
and what i've offered ?

Because you keep trying to claim I said that our withdrawl would lead to an end to the violence. Clearly that is not what I ever said.



So for the sixth time why, what is the basis for your beleif, that .

I have already addressed it five times. The fact you are misrepresenting what I said doesn't change with the sixth time you ask it.


[quote] How or why will the US's departure change or alter the four instigators of violence in iraq? /QUOTE]

Thats easy, because the presense of our troops as an occupying military force is the reason there is an insurgency and foreign fighters in Iraq attacking Americans in the first place. Our presense is not deterring the sectarian violence whatsoever so that is no justification for staying and promoting more insurgent violence.

Crime is a problem everywhere, including here in America as so many reich wingers like to point out, so that is clearly no reason to stay and promote more needless violence.

Iraq needs political and economic relief, not more foreign military forces.

:thumbs:
DB

Because you keep trying to claim I said that our withdrawl would lead to an end to the violence. Clearly that is not what I ever said.




I have already addressed it five times. The fact you are misrepresenting what I said doesn't change with the sixth time you ask it.


[quote] How or why will the US's departure change or alter the four instigators of violence in iraq? /QUOTE]

Thats easy, because the presense of our troops as an occupying military force is the reason there is an insurgency and foreign fighters in Iraq attacking Americans in the first place. Our presense is not deterring the sectarian violence whatsoever so that is no justification for staying and promoting more insurgent violence.

Crime is a problem everywhere, including here in America as so many reich wingers like to point out, so that is clearly no reason to stay and promote more needless violence.

Iraq needs political and economic relief, not more foreign military forces.

:thumbs:
DB

At last some meat. And your arguement doesn't hold. The US presence is not the cause of an insurgency. The struggle between various factions would exist even if the US weren't there. Even you admit that when you say we are not deterring sectarian violence. (Sectarian violence is merely another label for the political/military struggle going on in iraq.)

The US departure would change none of the four instigators of violence. NOt one iota. Because the four are all competing, in one form or another for power. And until that battle is decided or is forced to move to the political arena it will continue. Just because the US leaves doesn't mean they won't redirect their destruction elsewhere.

AS to the US presence not deterring sectarian violence the recent surge suggests otherwise. Sectarian violence, where the surge has occurred has indeed lessened. The statistics Petraeus showed don't lie.

Unfortunately until iraq gets more security it won't get greater economic aid. Capital abhors uncertainty and where violence goes, capital retreats. The two are inextricably linked.

Waldo,Im not sure what it is about Arab nations,they dont do democracy well,and seem to be led by sheep from a strong and ruthless ruling class.I dont think this will ever change,at the end of the day,they're not western like us and never will be.
My reasons for pointing this out are that under Saddam,rival factions were eleminated,ie a strongman.

Democracy requires the ability to compromise. Countries, regions, with a long or strong history of autocratic rule have little or no experience with the notion of compromise.

It's not that they can't do it they just don't have the experience of it.

And on an interesting side note. Have you ever noticed that those countries most opposed to Jews, or where jews face the most discrimination are typically the most authoritarian. why? The jews, for whatever reason, are very democratic. Their leaders are chosen by the people, not by some divine right. That type of example, combined witht eh economic success they enjoy is not a good combination for authoritarian regimes.

Democracy requires the ability to compromise. Countries, regions, with a long or strong history of autocratic rule have little or no experience with the notion of compromise.

It's not that they can't do it they just don't have the experience of it.Theres 2 types of rulers in the Arab world,the oil sheiks and the military people,these rulers have no interest in democracy,now or in the future.

And on an interesting side note. Have you ever noticed that those countries most opposed to Jews, or where jews face the most discrimination are typically the most authoritarian. why? The jews, for whatever reason, are very democratic. Their leaders are chosen by the people, not by some divine right. That type of example, combined witht eh economic success they enjoy is not a good combination for authoritarian regimes.Yes Jews are very 'majority rules' people,if memory serves there used to be a big socialist movement in Israel.Some people here would call me anti Israeli,nothing could be further from the truth,I think that the US support for them dosent help the region,and plays into the hands of Muslim extremeists.Good example,the one nation in the region that genuinely trys to rid itself of extremeists is bombarded by Israel--Lebanon.

And on an interesting side note. Have you ever noticed that those countries most opposed to Jews, or where jews face the most discrimination are typically the most authoritarian.

No. But I have noticed that the two nations on earth the most beholden to and/or the most supportive of Jews --the USA and Israel-- happen to be number one and number two on the list of world's largest purveyors of State sponsored terrorism.

You would make that connection.

No. But I have noticed that the two nations on earth the most beholden to and/or the most supportive of Jews --the USA and Israel-- happen to be number one and number two on the list of world's largest purveyors of State sponsored terrorism.
providing a target for your fellow fruit loops is hardly "sponsorship":rolleyes:

At last some meat.

It is the same thing I have been saying all along. :rolleyes:


The US presence is not the cause of an insurgency.

Well you are pretty damn alone in that opinion as the vast majority of the rest of the world can see the simple reality that our invasion and occupation is the cause of the insurgency.

The simple fact that makes your claim nonsense is that there was no insurgency before we invaded.


The struggle between various factions would exist even if the US weren't there.

The country was comparatively peaceful, integrated, secular before we invaded and toppled their government.



The US departure would change none of the four instigators of violence.

This is a pointless claim because the fact is that we ARE going to begin drawing down troops. Bush already admitted as much yesterday.
The escalation cannot be continued indefinitely. Period.



And until that battle is decided or is forced to move to the political arena it will continue.

Everyone knows there is no military solution in Iraq.

So what is your suggestion for getting a political solution?


The statistics Petraeus showed don't lie.

Actually they certainly do.

They completely fudged the numbers.

If someone got shot in the back of the head it was labeled "terrorism" but if they were shot in the front of the head it was not.

Unfortunately until iraq gets more security it won't get greater economic aid. Capital abhors uncertainty and where violence goes, capital retreats. The two are inextricably linked.

And unfortunately until Iraq gets a political solution there will be no security.

So again, what are your ideas for getting a political solution?

Trying to force our soldiers to stay there indefinitely is not the answer.
Never has been, never will be.

Actually they certainly do.

They completely fudged the numbers.

If someone got shot in the back of the head it was labeled "terrorism" but if they were shot in the front of the head it was not.


Do you have a cite for this? I'd be interested in reading it.

Do you have a cite for this? I'd be interested in reading it.

Here (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/09/06/iraq/index.html?source=rss&aim=war_room)

WTF? Is anyone pulling an actual article from that link?

No. But I have noticed that the two nations on earth the most beholden to and/or the most supportive of Jews --the USA and Israel-- happen to be number one and number two on the list of world's largest purveyors of State sponsored terrorism.


It's all the Joooooos fault. ft's world would be so much better is only we could get rid of the joooooos
Brave of you to reveal yourself. Another jooooooo hater in our midst.:rolleyes:

It is the same thing I have been saying all along. :rolleyes:;

If you had, beleive me the thread would be a page or two shorter.

Well you are pretty damn alone in that opinion as the vast majority of the rest of the world can see the simple reality that our invasion and occupation is the cause of the insurgency.

The simple fact that makes your claim nonsense is that there was no insurgency before we invaded.

Of course not, the gov't hadn't been over thrown. What happened to the description of iraq as a civil war? I thought that was the current meme. Or is this a recognition that events in iraq are not that simplistic?


The country was comparatively peaceful, integrated, secular before we invaded and toppled their government.
This is relevant to what part of the discussion? That iraq was better off under Hussein? The discussion is about the US' role in iraq and whether it's a stbilizing force or a propellant.

This is a pointless claim because the fact is that we ARE going to begin drawing down troops. Bush already admitted as much yesterday.
The escalation cannot be continued indefinitely. Period.

Another non-sequitur. The relationship between groups competing for power and troops leaving iraq is not contingent. If you think it is please explain.


Everyone knows there is no military solution in Iraq.

NO one has suggested there is. Defeat on the battlefield can lead to compromise at the table.

So what is your suggestion for getting a political solution?

Patience. As Crocker said the country has undergone a revolution, just like france or russia or china. This is history, changes of this magnitude don't get done on McDonalds time.
IF they can take the level of fear down they'll be in better shape.

I think they are gradually moving down the path towards resolving it. Probably another election, which is due in '09 will help. Many sunnis that voted in the last supported parties which were rejectionist or which hadn't come to realize that the world had changed. And those elected are currently pursuing that agenda in bagdhad. Based on recent events in anbar, diyala, bagdhad, and sal ah din i think we're likely to see a much different slate of sunni representative elected next time around.




Actually they certainly do.

They completely fudged the numbers.

If someone got shot in the back of the head it was labeled "terrorism" but if they were shot in the front of the head it was not.

Relying on your kooky blogs for factual information is not the best way to learn the facts. For those you should go to the source to see what was actually said. From his testimony before Congress.

PETRAEUS: “Let me just take advantage of this brief break here to set the record straight on something. There’s this mythology out there, and apparently an unnamed intelligence source who said that we only count executions if they’re shot in one part of the head and the other. That is just not true.

[...]

“As only the military can, we have a three page document on ethno-sectarian violence methodology and it is fairly comprehensive and it’s pretty logical and rational. And in the execution category, it says civilians that show signs of torture, being bound, blindfolded, or shot anywhere in the head, and so forth. So if I could just put that one to rest ... ”




And unfortunately until Iraq gets a political solution there will be no security.
Security for post revolutionary societies always comes first. The only time it doesn't come first is when one entity has established itself as the most powerful and sole dispenser of violence.


Trying to force our soldiers to stay there indefinitely is not the answer.
Never has been, never will be.

No one has suggested it has. Just a question in closing. How important is iraq success, forget who gets the blame or credit, is to the ME, to the world?

Just a question in closing. How important is iraq success, forget who gets the blame or credit, is to the ME, to the world?

How do you define "success"?

A point to consider.

Iraq didn't exist as a discrete nation 88 years ago. It is an artificial construction created by the League of Nations in 1920. Despite our desire to see the country of Iraq remain a whole and separate entity, this may not be possible with the current level of sectarian strife.

How do you define "success"?

A point to consider.

Iraq didn't exist as a discrete nation 88 years ago. It is an artificial construction created by the League of Nations in 1920. Despite our desire to see the country of Iraq remain a whole and separate entity, this may not be possible with the current level of sectarian strife.

Right! And why do we have to keep it as a whole. The boundaries of countries are not drawn by GOD! They are man-made, and we as men can change them.

Of course not, the gov't hadn't been over thrown.

Are you seriously trying to claim we did not overthrow the government of Iraq in 2003?

Are you trying to claim Paul Bremmer did not put hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of work when he dissolved government institutions, the Iraqi military, Iraqi police, and the top 200 Iraqi businesses?

All of that is a simple matter of public record. Read the book "Fubar" or Gen. Zinni's book "Battle Ready".


That iraq was better off under Hussein?

90% of Iraqis say it was. (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061229-101021-1168r)

Who are you to say different?


The relationship between groups competing for power and troops leaving iraq is not contingent.

We were talking about the violence in Iraq and what will cause it to decrease. One of the major causes of violence is the insurgency against our occupation.


NO one has suggested there is. {a military solution in Iraq}

You are certainly insinuating that.
You are the one arguing that we need to continue our occupation of their country indefinately. When I asked you for your idea of a political solution all you could come up with was "patience" with our military occupation. :rolleyes:


As Crocker said the country has undergone a revolution, just like france or russia or china.

Yes, they are revolting against our occupation. But their government is gone because we overthrew it and have failed to rebuild it properly.


I think they are gradually moving down the path towards resolving it.

There is no evidence to support that claim but there is a plethora of evidence that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. You need to start paying better attention to what is happening in Iraq.


Probably another election, which is due in '09 will help. Many sunnis that voted in the last supported parties which were rejectionist or which hadn't come to realize that the world had changed.

Are you seriously naive enough to claim that one more election will solve anything???
The Sunnis have abandoned the new government. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080600198.html)
The political situation in Iraq is deteroirating and here you are ignorantly claiming that all they need is one more election. :rolleyes:


Based on recent events in anbar, diyala, bagdhad, and sal ah din i think we're likely to see a much different slate of sunni representative elected next time around.

Oh, you mean the assasination last week of the Abu Risha (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14383382), the guy who led the people against the foreign fighters in Anbar province which caused the improvement in security there?



Relying on your kooky blogs for factual information is not the best way to learn the facts.

Since when is the GAO a "kooky blog"???


Security for post revolutionary societies always comes first.

You mean post "invasion".


The only time it doesn't come first is when one entity has established itself as the most powerful and sole dispenser of violence.

Like Saddam did.
Like you want us to do now.



No one has suggested it has.

Yes, you have. That is all you have suggested. So far your only ideas have been to keep our troops there and hopefully another election will solve everything.


Just a question in closing. How important is iraq success, forget who gets the blame or credit, is to the ME, to the world?

As Vile asked, How do you define "success"?

Vile made a great point. I would like to see you address it.

.

Are you seriously trying to claim we did not overthrow the government of Iraq in 2003?

Are you trying to claim Paul Bremmer did not put hundreds of thousands of Iraqis out of work when he dissolved government institutions, the Iraqi military, Iraqi police, and the top 200 Iraqi businesses?

All of that is a simple matter of public record. Read the book "Fubar" or Gen. Zinni's book "Battle Ready".

Where did you get that from? You said there wasn't an insurgency issue prior to the US' arrival i merely pointed out that there wasn't an insurgency becaue the prior gov't was still intact. So of course there wasn't an insurgency prior to. Duh!

StoryID=20061229-101021-1168r"]90% of Iraqis say it was. [/URL]

Who are you to say different?

The poll merely says that things haven't gotten better. Teh poll is also taken at the height of sectarian violence. We can play dueling polls from prior times that suggest that his departure is the best thing that's ever happened.

We were talking about the violence in Iraq and what will cause it to decrease. One of the major causes of violence is the insurgency against our occupation.

If your assertion were true then we would be suffering the majority of casualties. The insurgents are attacking iraqis, more than the US. That iraqis, mostly civilians, followed by police and the iraqi army are suffering the majority of causalites suggest the opposite of what you propose. (btw, one could just as easily, in fact more easily insert AQI, or JAM in that sentence and be more true.)

You are certainly insinuating that.
You are the one arguing that we need to continue our occupation of their country indefinately. When I asked you for your idea of a political solution all you could come up with was "patience" with our military occupation. :rolleyes:

that's your interpretation. i've not argued that it should be indefinitely at all. That you think i have speaks again to those matchbox reading comprehension courses. It's not patience with a military occupation. It's understanding that you have to crawl before you can walk before you can run. In the short tern we'lll should continue to assist them.

Yes, they are revolting against our occupation. But their government is gone because we overthrew it and have failed to rebuild it properly.

Their revolting?!! Is that what the sunni tribes in anbar are doing when they join with us? IS that what's happening when the shia turn in JAM belligerents? Wait at least an hour or two after taking your meds before posting.

There is no evidence to support that claim but there is a plethora of evidence that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. You need to start paying better attention to what is happening in Iraq.

There is you just don't know anything beyond the headline in the paper. For example can you tell us about events on the political scene and their potential implications. Is sadr splitting from the UIA goood or bad and why? Is the split within the shia coalition good or bad and why? Coudl you tell us who hashemi or abdel mahdi is without googling them and what there perceptions of events are? You know zip beyond the headline in the newspaper.


Are you seriously naive enough to claim that one more election will solve anything???
The Sunnis have abandoned the new government. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080600198.html)
The political situation in Iraq is deteroirating and here you are ignorantly claiming that all they need is one more election. :rolleyes:

As I have said it's a process that will take time. One more election is not going to turn them into the kind of functioning democracy akin to Switzerland or Sweden or .... It's merely another step in a process. Just as the French revolution didn't produce a democratic france instantly nor will this one instantly produce in iraq. That you think it should speaks more to your naivety or lack of perspective.
That's merely their interpretation. You readily acknowledge that we didn't understand the situation before we went in but now claim to completely understand their politics. :rolleyes:

Oh, you mean the assasination last week of the Abu Risha (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14383382), the guy who led the people against the foreign fighters in Anbar province which caused the improvement in security there? Typical, you pick an event and declare a trend. Let's wait and see what follows.

Since when is the GAO a "kooky blog"???

The GAO also acknowledges that their reporting doesn't include the 8 weeks before petraeus reported. :rolleyes:

You mean post "invasion".

If you like, a distinction without a difference.


Like Saddam did.
Like you want us to do now. Advocating for husein again?


Yes, you have. That is all you have suggested. So far your only ideas have been to keep our troops there and hopefully another election will solve everything.
More reading comprehension issues. You need to learn more about history and look at the larger perspective of what's going on. Your focus is too narrow. You might want to read Thom Barnett. A broad thinker who disagrees with the invasion but understands what's happening and why?


As Vile asked, How do you define "success"?

Vile made a great point. I would like to see you address it.

.

That's a neat way of avoiding answering the question. Don't worry i'll give vile his anwer long before you answer mine. I'll even give you a whole day headstart!

There was a good point made above.Apart from the initial mistake of invading Iraq,number 2 mistake was doing away with the government workers ie,police,civil service.

Originally Posted by Freethinker
No. But I have noticed that the two nations on earth the most beholden to and/or the most supportive of Jews --the USA and Israel-- happen to be number one and number two on the list of world's largest purveyors of State sponsored terrorism.

It's all the Joooooos fault.

?!?!?

I said no such thing. What I said about Israel was simply a statement of fact. I was talking about the policies of the State of Israel, it was not meant as an indictment, in any way, of all Jewish people.

ft's world would be so much better is only we could get rid of the joooooos
Brave of you to reveal yourself.

Wha.....??

I have never hinted at anything like "getting rid of the Jews", and I would greatly appreciate it if you'd stop with your lies to that effect. I have nothing whatsoever against the Jews as a people. The political leadership in Israel is a different matter.


Another jooooooo hater in our midst.:rolleyes:

You are but another liar and purveyor of strawmen in our midst.

You are but another liar and purveyor of strawmen in our midst.

There is a lot of that going around here lately.


.