You also can’t count out Iraqi antipathy for foreigners coming into their country to fight the coalition.
When foreigners are both invading your country for opposite reasons, it confuses the issue.
Especially when one side is building while the other side only destroys.
Is there a reason why anyone reading this thread should suspect that you have any idea whatsoever of what the fuck you’re talking about?
Does one set of gun-wielding invaders wear black hats and other set wear white hats or something like that?
No. But the general assumption seems to be that Iraqis would view foreign invaders attacking Americans as white hats and Americans as black hats.
Whoa, folks! The “reverse body count” was my idea. Maybe I wasn’t clear.
The <5000 is only meaningful if the ranks of the insurgents aren’t easily replenished - that is, if they’re mostly disgruntled holdout supporters of the old regime, along with a handful of foreign infiltrators. (I recall seeing the Admin or military put a figure of 50 on the latter within the past week or so - sorry, no link.)
My point is that, regardless of how nasty they are, if they’re giving us a meaningful number, we can objectively chart their progress until they kill off 4999 guerillas (or they kill themselves off - not only must we count suicide bombings, but according to Hickory6’ blog, bombmakers’ blowing themselves up unintentionally is a regular facet of life over there which never makes our news), at which point they must have achieved success. Or they’re effectively lying, by passing out meaningless numbers as having meaning: “the opposition is a vanishingly small proportion of the entire Iraqi population, and we can track them down and kill them off, one by one if need be.”
Sorry but you don’t need 5000 people for this…
Sadly enough it wont get any better soon.
From a distance one can question how it ever will get under control… a question the US government should have posed itself before invading such a complicated nation.
Now the “plan” is “transfer the power”. Speaking of panic leading to a predictable disaster once again… How many times must they panic before they go flat on their faces in public and more important: The public finally taking good notice of it?
Salaam. A
Well, I have to admit it doesn’t sound TOO panic’y to me (sorry for the Fox Cite…it was on MSN earlier, but I can’t find the damn article now):
From Fox
Bolding is mine.
So, at least according to what I’ve read, the US is mearly doing what the Iraqi’s have been yammering at us to do…turn over control to them of their administration. Our troops will still be there, unless the Iraqis also ask us to leave (I assume thats what this means “The new Iraqi government would negotiate an accord on the status of U.S. forces in the country.”).
I’m not seeing the ‘turn tail and run’ assertion by the anti-war crowd to be honest. I’m sure we are turning over control to the Iraqi’s in a (possibly vain attempt) to lessen the violence, but at least as far as this article and others I’ve read are concerned, there is no plan to also remove our troops at the same time.
I suppose time will tell…we’ll certainly know soon if Bush plans to turn tail and run…the election is only a year away, and the only plausable reason he WOULD pull our troops out is for the election. Once he’s safely elected he’ll have 4 more years to get them out of there.
-XT
It is not because they “plan” now “handover of power” that it is actually going to happen. The puppets will remain - probably a bit less visible to begin with - and more problematic: the opposition wont disappear miraculously.
Iraq is a very complicated nation where all etnic, religious, tribal factors each play a role and are all intertwined one way or the other.
I’m afraid you shall be constantly reminded on the words “you ain’t seen nothing yet”, but it isn’t what Bush dreamed it would be. “Shock and Awe” has yet to come I’m afraid.
The borders are as leak as any terrorist can dream of, and that is only a fraction of the problems that are surfacing under our eyes.
Everybody with a little bit of insight predicted this. As I said earlier: It isn’t even as bad as I calculated it would become. But it isn’t finished and I don’t see right now how it can be brought under control.
Salaam. A
Aldebaron, these morons will never go flat on their faces in public. That would interfere with re-election. Better to just concoct different lies every day or every week, like this stinking 5000 pile of bull, until voters just get so sick of it they tune out entirely.
If you guys were both addressing your remarks to me all I can say is…huh?
From Not In Anger
Double huh? My english isn’t very good either, Alderbaran. What were you trying to say here??
From Alderbaran
As for this…I’ve told you this before, but I’m not sure you got it. I’ll try again. The ‘shock and awe’ part was DURING the war. And ya, I think the Iraqi ARMY got that message just fine. You don’t do ‘shock and awe’ AFTER the major fighting is done…its a bit hard on the population, as well as the buildings and such.
Granted, it was a stupid thing to say…just like “you aint seen nothing yet” was a stupid thing to say. Politicians of all stripes are like that…they get paid to say stupid things. Its just one of those trite little sayings you always get from politicians. Why it annoys YOU so much, I’ll never understand.
Again, if the above was addressed to me and my earlier remarks…whats your points? If not, I appologize. I’m just confused. 
-XT
Xtisme,
What I’m saying is that in this glorious “handover of power” plan there is no place for a government in Iraq by Iraqis if they don’t dance like the US has planned they would dance before they invaded that nation.
And when I quote the “shock and Awe” and the “You ain’t seen nothing yet” arrogance… I mean that it are now the US’ers overthere who see this “shock adn awe” coming from the Iraqy side. And that the US “ain’t seen nothing yet” since what they set off there isn’t going to be silenced very soon. If ever in the coming decades.
Why it “annoyes” me is because the US president and crew in its “shock and awe” and “you ain’t seen nothing yet” arrogance has invaded a sovereign nation that happens to be located in my part of the world. They destabilized - and this time extremely good - what is my part of the world = where I live, where my family lives, where my children grow up.
If there is something we don’t need, then it is a USA instigating terrorism where ever they show up. (physically or not, whatever)We have enough of that type of amusement without the USA growing more “angry young non-US men ready to kill US men” by the minute.
Salaam. A
There will be no body count until there are actually some identifiably-enemy bodies to be counted. Even then, there won’t be - we’ll be looking at the increasing number of attacks, 35 per day at last report, and making analogies to the Hydra.
Anyone else get the impression that “Operation Iron Hammer” will turn out to be counterproductive in that regard?
…I’m just waiting for Bush to get in front of the television cameras and say, with a straight face, “Things are improving in Iraq! The opposition are so scared of our success, they’ve killed XXX soldiers today!” :rolleyes:
xtisme: Aldeban’s always trying to say, “I hate America but I can’t be bothered with posting any proof of my statements.” It’s just different words, never a different message.
From Aldebaran
Well ALderbaran, thats true enough. However, just to take a reality break for a quick sec, the Iraqi’s LOST. Right or wrong, they lost the war. So, its gona take some time before they DON’T have to dance to America’s strings…thats an unfortunate consequence of losing. They WILL get their chance, some day. Might be 5 years from now, or 10. Luckily for THEM, it was America that won…not, say, Iran. Lucky because America has a short attention span, and we will weary of being over there eventually, pack up, and go home.
In fact, if there was NO resistance in Iraq, we’d probably be making plans to go home NOW…Bush would LOVE to have the troops home for the holidays, etc. A smart play on the Iraqi resistances part might be to basically sit quiet for a year or so, THEN come out of the wood work. Thats also not gona happen, but it would have been effective.
From Aldebaran
I seriously hate to burst your bubble here Alderbaran…but the US is neither ‘shocked’ or ‘awed’ yet. I know, when you follow threads on this board you here people tearing their hair out over this thing, especially the loses, and its easy to get the impression that this thing is a total disaster. However, reality is that its NOT a total disaster, though I conceed it certainly COULD be. Most of the folks whinning about this loudest were the ones totally against this thing from the beginning…and against it, not because of the real, rational reasons like it was fucking stupid of us to do, but against it because dey don’t want war no more!
While each loss is a tradegy (on BOTH sides btw), you have to put this in a little perspective. Ok, we just fought a war with Iraq, pretty much destroying their main field army, and capturing all of their major cities…and have had a very difficult occupation so far, with heavy resistance. And our losses to date have been? Less than 500. Alderbaran, you clain to be a historian…use your analytical mind and put those figures into perspective with other wars in history. Even at 500 deaths a year (I’m counting from America’s perspective here…you’d have to chime in on what you think the Iraqi’s will take as acceptable losses) an entire DECADE only brings the death toll to 5000. Correct? Say that the resistance increases…lets double it then, just for arguements sake. Thats 10,000 combat deaths. Now…think back to earlier wars (hell, I can think of some BATTLES where more men were killed)…starting to get the picture as to why we AREN’T ‘shocked’ or ‘awed’ yet…and why you are blowing this thing way out of proportion? Probably not, but you won’t be alone…I can feel the flames coming towards me.
As I said before, the things Bush said were stupid…they were common bullshit retoric that ALL politicians use. It wasn’t arrogance…it was RETORIC. It was a ‘strategy’ which they tagged a snappy line too Aldebaran. And I hate to point this out to you, but the ‘stategy’ was pretty damn effective during the war with the Iraqi Army. I’d say they didn’t even know what hit them for the most part. So, its not arrogance if you can make it happen…its assurance. Also, they were trying to SCARE the Iraqi’s in a (probably vain attempt) to make them fold their hand without any fighting. I don’t expect any of this to get through to you, so I’ll quit on this now. sigh
Why they bother you so much I STILL don’t get. Oh well, I probably never will.
From Aldebaran
Well, we see things differently (to put it mildly). Personally, I don’t have a problem with war, when its necessary. I don’t even have a serious problem with agressive war, again, if its necessary. I certainly don’t see the huge problem with invading a soveriegn nation…if its necessary. My big problem is that THIS war was so fucking stupid…I have a problem with THAT. I don’t, for instance, have a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan, say. Admittedly I’m none too please on what we’ve done there AFTER the major fighting was done, but with the invasion part? No problem here.
As to the rest of your post…well, I can practically feel you getting wound up for another US bash blast, so I’ll leave off there.
From Monty
I know…its fun to go back and forth with him sometimes…for a while. There is SUCH a huge disconnect between him and most posters its actually amusing…for a time. Then he’ll get wound up though and start spewing anti-US invective, and its not so amusing anymore. He’s almost like a berserk poster…he see’s red and fills the post…then maybe calms down and you can talk to him again…sort of.
-XT
XT,
Reality time for you:
Iraq didn’t start any war with the USA. So they really can’t loose anything they didn’t start. They were invaded and they are under occupation.
= The USA invaded a sovereign nation.
= The USA occupies a sovereign nation
= Every Iraqy chitizen has every right to hunt down every foreigner who is part of this and kill every foreigner who is part of this.
I guess you would do exactly the same if a foreign nation borught your country under occupation and murdered thousands of people while invading it. Or do you think you ould welcome those criminals with open arms.
And I’m so sorry, but indeed “You ain’t seen nothing yet”.
As for the attacks on those foreigners who aren’t there as part of the occupation force but working with the aim to help the occupied nation to overcome the aftermath of this criminal illegal US led and US instigated war:
Those who commit these attacks should be hunted down by all means and put on trial by the international community.
As for the rest of your poor attempt to write insulting comments: Since they show clearly that you aren’t interested at all in a polite and respectful change of thoughts, then in my opinion everything between us is said.
I don’t waste my time on discussing with people who only answer my posts with the aim to show themselves utterly disrespectful.
May God bless you.
Goodbye.
Salaam. A
Thanks for publicly declaring that this war was not to liberate Iraq, but to colonize it. And thanks for demonstrating that it was not for the benefit of the world, because otherwise the world would have won.
Ah, the US would have been gone? Thanks for declaring so freely that the Geneva conventions are nothing you bother yourself with.
Methinks you are a wee bit confused about political systems. It is a wee bit of a difference if a dictatorship or absolutist regime is sending cannon fodder into battle compared to a democracy doing so. One would have thought you learned that lesson from Vietnam.
Probably better, because it’s a bunch of pure hogwash born of little more than testosterone.
In other words, you have no problem with people acting in the same manner as Saddam, as long as it isn’t OTHER people, but you. Cause of course it is YOU who define what is necessary.
From Aldebaran
Never said they did, my man. Whats that got to do with anything?? As to them being invaded and occupied…well, thats all fairly obvious. The REALITY if you will.
From Aldebaran
Um, you are in a “state the obvious” mood today, ehe? Again, never said that we DIDN’T invade, never said we DIDN’T occupy, never said that the Iraqi DIDN’T have the right to defend themselves. If they CAN kill us all, they are more than welcome to try. Its not a right old boy, its an ability…if its in their ability, then they will win. Ok? THey are certainly giving it a game try. Whats your thoughts on the NON-Iraqis though? They seem to be there just the gratruitously kill AMericans. Is it THEIR duty also to ‘hunt down every foreigner who is part of this and kill…blah blah blah’?
From Aldebaran
You are putting words in my mouth, alderbaran. I never said such things. Why didn’t you ASK me these questions, instead of telling me how I think. I know…because you ASSUMED you knew.
From Aldebaran
See? You too can learn the art of retorical bullshit!! It only takes a bit of practice. I’m so proud of you. Now, lets analyze YOUR retoric. Unless you are saying that the Iraqi’s secretly have a nuke hidden in the desert, or some of SH WMD, I’d say we HAVE pretty much seen what they can do. Are you seriously asserting that you think that they are capable of doing more than a guerrilla resistance? I’m not holding my breath for any earth shattering changes, except maybe in the intensity of the guerrilla campaign…and THAT won’t come as a shock. Sorry Alderbaran…pop.
From Aldebaran
YOu are getting tedius. Again…whats your point? If you are responding to me (which I assume you are) I never denied this. I would in fact ASSUME it was so, from the Iraqi perspective. Its called ‘war’ Alderbaran…you know, they try and kill us, we try and kill them.
From Aldebaran
God knows I’ve TRIED to be both polite and respectful to you…it doesn’t work. It bounces off you like rain off a roof and dribbles uselessly to the ground. You reap what you sow, Alderbaran, and if you don’t get respect or thoughtful replies, its because of YOUR past actions. Remember when I tried to give you a little advice long ago, and you blew me off? Maybe you should have taken the time to actually read it and think about what I was saying.
Peace to you though,
XT
From OliverH
Huh? Would you mind telling me where I said any such thing. Double huh? What does MY public declairation (if it had of happened, which it didn’t) mean? Unless you think I’m GWII in disguise or something.
First off…I never said we were there to colonize…in fact, I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite in the quote of mine you used for this rant. Lets review: “Lucky because America has a short attention span, and we will weary of being over there eventually, pack up, and go home.” This seems to be saying just the opposite of whatever you are babbling about. Now, wipe the foam from your muzzle and we’ll proceed.
Secondly, I never said that the Iraq campaign (which I ASSUME you are ranting about here) was either A) A good idea B) For the worlds benifit or C) A contest between the US and the World or whatever you are saying at the end there. God only knows, I have no idea what this means: “because otherwise the world would have won.”
From OliverH
Show me SPECIFICALLY where the US is in complete or partial violation of the Geneva convention and we’ll discuss that point rationally…if such is possible for you to do (i.e. the rationality, not the cite for Geneva convention violations, which I DO think is possible). I have no objections to exploring the violations the US did, and discussing my thoughts on them…however, you are ASSUMING I have no objections to our violations.
How you get THIS whole rant though from my quote, which was "In fact, if there was NO resistance in Iraq, we’d probably be making plans to go home NOW…Bush would LOVE to have the troops home for the holidays, etc. A smart play on the Iraqi resistances part might be to basically sit quiet for a year or so, THEN come out of the wood work. Thats also not gona happen, but it would have been effective." I’ll never know. Maybe you should stay off the heavy drugs. I don’t discuss the Geneva convention at all here, nor my thoughts on them, nor my opinions on the US for supposed violations of them…I’m merely speculating that if there was no resistance after our invasion of Iraq, GW would be falling over himself in an effort to get the troops home for all the victory parades. You have some objection to my musing about this? Or did you even understand what I was saying.
From OliverH
Methinks thy reading skills need a wee bit of brushing up. Methinks that thou are putting words in my mouth. Methinks thee is making all kinds of rabid assumptions about me and my views. Shall we drop the psudo-Elizebethan bit now? Oh, you still have a bit of foam on the left corner of your mouth. Ok, thats better.
Now…read (carefully) through what I was saying and what it was in response too with Alderbaran. If you have some serious objections to what I actually WROTE, why don’t you list THOSE, and we can discuss them. Try to put them into context with the points I was trying to make in my arguement with Alderbaran…and remember, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
From OliverH
As good a definition of political retoric as any, I suppose.
From OliverH
Ah, comparative morality. Look, you obviously didn’t actually read what I wrote. I never said that I felt Iraq was either right or justified. In fact, I have said just the opposite many times. Lets review what I DID say (again), shall we (since YOU quoted me…lol)?
From me
So, to review…I don’t have a problem with war, when its necessary. I have a serious problem with Iraq. I have no real problems with Afghanistan, save for whats happened afterward. Got all that? Now, what are your serious objections to THOSE points. Please…try for rationality.
Hate to break this to you, living in your utopian world, but sometimes war IS necessary. Its a harsh old world, still. A knee jerk reaction to war, any war, is, IMO, just wrong…but thats just MY OPINION. Part of the problem with the anti-war movement, IMO, was just such a reaction. Instead of calm, ordered objections which I think MAY have penetrated to the general public better, you had “NO WAR FOR OIL!!” ranting, and just knee jerk anti-war because war is bad retoric. That wasn’t going to fly, IMO, not with the attitudes then. Maybe even reasoned arguements wouldn’t have flow either, but I’ll tell you, I for one would have been more receptive to them. But I digress…thats another debate.
I can respect the person who feels differently about it, and even debate the point with him her rationally, without attempting to portray them as the antichrist or demonizing them for their beliefs. To me, its a matter of a philosophical difference.
To me, sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes a nation state must go to war. Sometimes a nation state must pre-emptively go to war. Iraq was not one of those times. Afghanistan, IMO was. You disagree…fine. But why demonize me because we disagree? I didn’t demonize YOU for being an anti-war person. All I attempted to do was make you look stupid for basically misquoting me, quoting me out of context, making assumptions on my presumed attitudes and stances and putting words in my mouth. All in good fun, but it had nothing to do with your anti-war stance.
-XT
I would suggest you heed your own advice. Liberation usually does not imply preventing the locals from administrating themselves. The reasoning you implied as to why the US was running Iraq implies 1:1 that this is not a war for the benefit of Iraq, but rather the US.
God knows a bit of thinking before you write would do a lot of good. You claimed that ‘America has won’ the war, and that Iraq lost it. That implies that a)America fought the war solely for itself, and b)it fought the war against, not for the Iraqis.
I could do so, however, it would have nothing to do with my argument. I would suggest you actually adress what is being said, rather than simply rambling incoherently. You suggested the US would have left immediately if there had not been any resistance. Under the Geneva Conventions, the US is responsible for ensuring a proper infrastructure and security in the occupied area.
Methinks thou art talking to yourself.
I would recommend more reading, less frothing, and you might already know. Because I already said that the objections is that YOU justify what is necessary.
I hate to break this to you, but it is you who is living in a fantasy world, because I never said that war wasn’t necessary sometimes. But don’t let that keep you from cheering on the troops.
You have already proven your claim to have been more receptive to them a lie, because you don’t bother to actually listen what people are saying. You are spooling your regular propaganda drivel and invent arguments the other side allegedly made for the sheer sake of having something you can actually debunk. You grab some headlines and declare them ‘anti war’ side positions, without actually bothering to thoroughly research any point, be it yours or that of the other side.
No, you talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk.
Except you were the only one doing any misquoting, and in fact, completely invented positions. You were the one who put things into other people’s mouth that they had never said.
And I apologize if I don’t accept responsibility for your not thinking through your arguments.