Iraq and Iran in bed together? They had a very ugly 8 year war. There is no love there at all. Try hatred.
Major political groups in Iraq right now spent years in Iran being supported by Iran against Hussein.
The United Iraqi Alliance … lead by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is the electoral coalition that achieved the most votes in the December 15, 2005, Iraqi legislative election, December 2005 in Iraq.
The alliance formed in the lead up to the January 2005 elections from mainly Shi’ite groups most importantly the Islamic Al-Da’wa Party and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
SCIRI
In light of its gains in both elections and government appointments, SCIRI is one of Iraq’s most powerful political parties and the biggest party in the Iraqi Council of Representatives.
Historically, an Iraqi insurgent group backed by Iran during the Iran-Iraq war,
It was largely based in Tehran.
SCIRI supports the tenet of Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that government should be controlled by the ulema (Islamic scholars)
SCIRI is alleged to receive money and weapons from Iran, and is often accused of being a proxy for Iranian interests.
Daawa
http://www.iraqinews.com/party_islamic_daawa_party.shtml
The group was blamed by the Iraqi leaders for actions that necessitated the attack on Iran in 1980. Dawa members mostly either joined the Iranian military units or refrained from political activity altogether. Islamic Dawa Party members staged a major assassination attempt on Saddam Husayn in July of 1982, bombed the Ministry of Planning in August of 1982, and attacked Saddam Hussein’s motorcade in April of 1987.
It supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran and in turn received support from the Iranian government, especially during the Iran-Iraq War.
During the Iran-Iraq War, al-Dawa also committed violent acts against both Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq and Western Sunni targets. It was widely viewed in the West as a terrorist organization in this period. It attempted to assassinate Tariq Aziz,
Maybe they are or they are not “in bed together.” However, it’s clear that when it’s mutually productive to do so, there are profound sympathies and connections there to be used by Daawa and SCIRI and Iran.
AFAIK, a number of people will continue to support whatever Bush does because they believe it’s/he’s been ordained by God. And they’ll say it will take as long as it takes and will cost whatever it costs–hence, no numbers.
Not at all. I said precisely what you point out above. Namely that neighbors have close relationships when they have shared interests. Here:
To claim, as John Mace did, that simply because they are neighbors they will have close relations is absolute crap. Hell, they fought a proxy war against each other where they went at it tooth and nail. With that in mind, the cozening of late doesn’t really seem to bode well.
My sarcasm sending unit has been recalibrated as recently as a week ago. You might wanna check your receiver.
Primary difference being that neither Mexico nor the US has been destroyed as a country by a third party, thereby necessitating the need to find someone, anyone, who will extend a helping hand. Your examples are poor.
That there was nothing whatsoever to win in Iraqle, aside from kicking the crap out of their military, which I don’t recall anyone claiming wasn’t going to happen. I also recall, inre the democratically elected government, the word “stable” being bandied about. Now, granted, that was far back in the mists of time, when I was young and vibrant, but of all the words that can be used to describe the current government of Iraqle, I don’t think “stable” is one of them. We couldn’t win anything except the beating of their military, because there were never any clear-cut objectives. Regime Change to the aforementioned stable government and a secular, democratic state in the Middle East? - Not really so much. Elimination of WMDs? Evidently this has become moot. News to me, but I live a little, I learn a little, I have another drink. Ensuring that Iraq does not become an exporter of terrorism? Complete failure. So, how would you define what Iraqle has become? Because from my clear eyed and lofty perch, it seems to be a loss.
Screw that. I’m pissed.
Howzabout I define what victory means to me? Victory to me would be to rebuild that which we have destroyed, and work with the Iraqi populace to actually build that stable, democratic government that I dimly recall being touted. Fuck rose petals being strewn in our path, fuck being welcomed as heroes. Let’s just fix what we have managed to screw up. From the aforementioned working government to such mundane things as getting electricity to all the places it was before we rolled in and everything in between. Conversely, failure means not accomplishing these things. And we’ve not.
No, it isn’t. Unless you have the same slam dunk, take-it-to-the-bank, better than swearing on a stack of bibles information that Safire and Cheney claim. Information that has been debunked repeatedly. And I wasn’t tying anything to the war against terror, just making a statement.
And you can call me a lot of things. Frankly, if I think you missed one, I will point it out to you and tell you how to tie it to me. But inferring that I have a conservative position? Y’know, my mother once inferred that I had a conservative position. Please note the past tense in that sentence.
Which fact is that? That al Qaeda as a force didn’t exist in Iraqle before the invasion? How is that debatable? That al Qaeda does exist now? How is that debatable?
Nonsense. I do, though, claim that the government that the latest (and, fates willing, last) Bush administration wanted was, as I have said, stable and democratic. It’s not stable, and the entire nation is heading toward Balkanization, leading to a somewhat diluted democratic process.
You’re doing this whole “understatement” thing on purpose, aren’t you? And when the goal was a stable, democratic and secular government, then how do you figure we’ve not “lost”? Are you defining it as a “win”? Or as a “victory that hasn’t happened yet”?
Except for that little Iran/Iraq war thingie, proxy fight between the US and USSR and all that implies. Sure, most states do. But most states don’t have the national enmity that Iraq and Iran have. Not to mention the whole Persian/Arab aspect. Quite to the contrary, I think that there’s every reason to think that things wouldn’t be close. Except that the US managed to fuck up one of the parties, leaving them casting about for someone to assist them in their time of need.
Point taken. They still don’t seem to be getting on all that well, though.
Get over your cheap self, dearie. I ridicule those who agree with me, too. You really oughta grow a thicker skin.
xtime and John Mace, for a couple of bright guys you seem to be woefully and surprisingly misinformed about the situation on the ground in Iraq.
Fact of the matter is that you (that’s The US of A) has failed miserably b any metric you’d want to use. Other than devastating a crumpled, run-down, rusting Iraqi “army,” the extent of your “victory” is keeping your heads down, staying in any number of your compounds (especially the Queen’s Jewel, The Green Zone, what with McDonald’s and Domino’s) and carefully venture out on patrols where normally you lose a few soldiers while killing any number of “insurgents” be it women or children included in said counts.
Other than that what have you got? Anarchy, complete and utter chaos in a nation you’re obliged by the Geneva Convention to restore “law and order.” Not gonna happen. Not under your watch, that much is obvious. I mean, seriously, what else are you going to throw at them? Because short of nukes, you’ve tried everything and the insurgents just keep geting stronger – witness what happened this weekend under your new “crackdown.”
As for Basra, surprised some of you are so unaware of the bloody struggle going on down there. A struggle that the British have been completely unable to quell:
If that’s “victory” I wonder what you’d call defeat?
Bit more info on Basra – the second largest and deadliest city in Iraq:
British leave Basra to its own devices
History, BTW, that is being written as we speak. The history of an abysmal and bloody failure.
*bolding/underlining mine.
Still not an ‘invasion’ some fucking bargepole.
And you my friend have a reading disability. I never said the US had achieved ‘victory’. Quite the opposite in fact. Because Red, no one has defined THAT term either…and its bound to mean something different to each of us.
My whole point, which obviously sailed right over your head, was to attempt to get the OP to actually define what s/he meant by getting conservatives to admit ‘we lost in Iraq’ by DEFINING what the fuck that phrase means. I mean, if you want to have a good faith discussion about how the US has already lost the war, a good place to start would be with what it means that the US has lost…what metrics are you using to evaluation that statement.
Horseshit. There isn’t anarchy in Iraq, as there is still a central government. There isn’t even what I would define as an all out civil war in Iraq…yet. (here we go though with definitions again…obviously YOU think there IS an all out civil war in Iraq). But Anarchy? What definition are you using to make that assertion wrt Iraq? What metrics are you using? Since the US is still there, even if you completely discount the Iraqi elected government (which you obviously are doing), there is SOME authority in country…thus my request for your definition of ‘anarchy’.
-XT
A central govt hat needs twenty thousand more US troops to take the country’s capitol.
Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead
Natl Intelligence Estimate 2007
The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war” does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war” accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.
Apparently, there’s a civil war and then some.
And you may want to re-read what I wrote and check your irony meter, ehe? 
Well, I disagree that ‘my examples’ (singular in my case) were poor…while noting that your own aren’t exactly tip top.
I thought the OP was asking when conservatives would admit ‘we lost’…whatever that means. I never mentioned that we had ‘won’, or achieved ‘victory’…and I’d make the exact same assertion I made before. Define what ‘winning’ or ‘victory’ MEANS wrt the Iraqi conflict…then we can debate that.
You guys are really reading much more into whats being written in this thread than is ACTUALLY being written. Afaict neither I nor John Mace has mentioned anything about us having won in Iraq. If I have (or I missed John Mace going completely nuts and saying something that insane), please feel free to point it out. In the absence of that, I will take the above paragraph as a mere knee jerk tape recording to a pat response you THOUGHT a ‘conservative’ would make, and move on.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Ok…fair enough (and the first step in actually answering my own questions in this thread…as opposed to attempting to put words in my mouth, or set up strawman positions I never asserted).
Since the jury is still out however, you could make a claim (and a reasonable one IMHO) that we are FAILING…but I don’t see how you could assert you have FAILED. Unless you have access to a time machine of course. If you do, I’d appreciate some info on the next lotto numbers in my home state…I’ll cut you in 50/50!
Of course its debatable…if you are unwise enough to actually attempt to debate this point. Unless you’d like to bring out your evidence that AQ didn’t exist as a force prior to the Iraqi invasion. Personally, I DON’T think its debatable (I was trying to be tactful…I’m going through a phase lately :))…I think the assertion that AQ wasn’t a force prior to the Iraqi invasion is silly. However, if you’d like to make some assertions that AQ wasn’t a force prior to the Iraqi invasion feel free…maybe I’m missing something. You could, perhaps, start with all those people in Afghanistan we didn’t bomb the shit out of, then work your way back to some of the directly attributable acts they didn’t commit for the decade before the second Iraqi invasion, and then look at how they didn’t have their roots in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
I’ll let JM tackle the rest of your post as you were responding to him…though he might not bother considering your tone toward him.
-XT
That is defined (by me) as a fucked up situation…not ‘anarchy’. I suppose definitions can vary of course. In addition, you are glossing over things by making this simplistic assertion…and you know it, as you are one of the folks who I feel is most up on this stuff.
Bottom line…are you seriously asserting that Iraq, even today as fucked up as it is, is in a true state of anarchy?
YMMV…and I would conceed this point much more than that Iraq is in a complete state of anarchy. The whole ‘civil war’ thingy is definitely a matter of perspective. To ME, its a hot insurgency that is bordering on true civil war. To ME, it becomes a civil war when both sides are openly fighting each other, and doing so at much higher levels of military strength (i.e. when we see the various militias start fighting large actions or set piece battles of battalion or higher strength).
Obviously my own definition is not definitive…and I don’t claim it is. Its MY definition. I respect your own on this, and if to you its a full scale civil war then while I might disagree, I respect your conclusion.
-XT
Not as any anarchist would recognize it.
Things are something other than orderly.
I offered up the DNI’s most authoritative written judgments containing the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community.
you rock too
If in ten years, or ten thousand years, we are continuing to pour American soldiers into the meat grinder, then certain among us will assert that we have not yet failed. The sane among us, however, will recognize that as of the moment it became inescapably clear that success would be impossible no matter how long we kept at it, that is when failure was inevitable. In other words, as long as we do not admit failure, as long as we maintain a defensible public pretense of relentlessly pursuing success, then we have not failed.
This, of course, is madness; but it is a comforting madness.
Nope. It’s in a “false” state of anarchy :rolleyes:
From Answers.com:
Nota bene: that article is almost two years old when thing were going “well” by today’s yardstick
Don’t tell me. You had lunch with Laura Bush last night.
Laura Bush: Much Of Iraq Is ‘Stable,’ There’s Just ‘One Bombing A Day That Discourages Everybody’
Cripes. Just how much reality (read:blood) do some of you need to realize you’re mired in a clusterfuck you can’t possibly win? Militarily or politically, your time to “fix” Iraq is long gone.
Say, could you forward this article to your pal, Laura? In Iraq, the killing of 18 teenagers is a horrible routine
Well, damnit then. The sarcasmometer is what gets such a workout, that I failed to ask for a recalibration of the ironometer.
Which examples are those? That neither the US nor Mexico has been overrun and destroyed? I’m honestly lost on this.
And at no point did I say that anyone was claiming a “win”. Nor that anyone was claiming “victory”. I did, however, define what I would consider “victory”. In point of fact, you address it in just a bit. Lemme see. . .where is it? Oh! Here:
So do you still see the corner that we’re in the process of turning? An upside to the current situation? Do you think the surge (which has been dismissed by people far more knowledgeable of the situation than I) will accomplish a thing? How, precisely, do you define what is happening in Iraqle right now? Are we simply “failing”? Because if so, then there’s precious little to talk about. People will claim that we’re “Not winning, but not losing” until they are dead and buried (cremated, stuffed, whatever). Are you one of those people? I gave you my definition of victory, it seems to me that you’re duty bound to provide your own.
Fuck that, you’re on yer own.
How so? What evidence do you have that al Qaeda existed as a force prior to GWII (this time, it’s not going as well, as a matter of fact, there exist those who say that we’re “failing”)? Because to date, the most flogged and subsequently refuted evidence is the Prague meeting.
No need, I’m an alleged grownup.
Somehow, I think I’ll get by. Frankly, I don’t need a thin skinned little pisher pitching a fit whenever I’m a smartass.
[**U.S. spy chief: ‘Civil war’ is accurate.
Marks 1st use of term by top Bush official**](http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0228iraq-civil0228.html)
Offered w/out further comments.
Go up thread a bit and you’ll see the same link used by PatriotX, Red. 
-XT
You can, of course, quote the part where I “pitch[ed] a fit”, right?
No, I chose to disengage with you because 1) You’ve got your facts wrong and show no inclination to correct that 2) you engage in childish name-calling (Iraqle, pisher) and 3) post in a style that is the written equivalent of hysterical screaming instead of honest debate.
You are, no doubt familiar with the written form and/or concept of hyperbole, right?
What facts are you referring to?
Welcome to the real world. Where certain people do things differently. And, on occasion, irreverently. We certain people are kinda funny that way.
Where did I do this?
Again, grow a thicker skin.
Let me just add that a nasty civil war, as horrible as it may be, isn’t a sign that the US “lost” in Iraq. I can’t think of many modern democracies that didn’t have to go thru a civil war to get to where they are now. Did the US lose the War of Independence because we engaged in a civil later on? What will determine whether or not we’ve “lost” is if Iraq (or part of Iraq) turns into a haven for Islamist terror groups waging attacks on the US. That is a very distinct possibility, but it hasn’t happened yet.
So, yes, Iraq is a mess. Bush should never have invaded, and he handled the invasion miserably. But that doesn’t mean that just because a statement about Iraq is framed in the negative (eg, The US has lost) that the statement is true.