Another year of living misery in Baghdad

[MadRat]

The war is being funded the sane way Vietnam was funded in the late 60's; the war is being fought on the cheap. All the high tech gadgets in the world cannot win it. The Iraqis need a reason for it to succeed, a nationalistic reason. Otherwise it may as well be divided up into smaller parts

Zebo has did a good job summing up the underlying reason it cannot succeed as it goes now.

 

[NeenerNeener]

300 billion dollars is not "on the cheap" but perhaps I misunderstand your meaning. I am inclined to agree that it can't be won by us, but I wonder if it will have a chance of being won by Iraqis without our aid. I was one of the first to believe our Iraq invasion would be a large tactical error in the interests of the war on terror. We're left with a power vacuum that, even if democracy does somehow prevail, will be filled by a more fundamentalist sect of Islam. Never have I been so angry as I have by the arrogant actions of our leaders and attitudes of some of our citizens. However, conversely to your analogy, "How do you know that pulling out of there now wouldn't be "compounding error with more error"?

 

[piasabird]

It is a fallacy that any war in the middle east can be won by the USA. The government in Iraq is the party that has to win the war. Bush just does not seem to understand that when people keep coming accross the Syrian Border, that he is attacking the wrong country. If Syria is harboring all these terrorists it should have been attacked. If syrians kill civilians in Iraq, we should kill civilians in Syria. It is the only thing they understand. This is really a hopeless war. I can see no reason why we really need to be trying to convince Iraqi people to become westernized. Instead of attacking Iraq, we should have pulled out of Saudia Arabia.

If you study the policy we used in WWII when a country attacked us we bombed the civilian citizens until there was nothing left. We used a crude Napalm in Japan and firebombed their cities. I guess the USA is getting soft. This kinder gentler way of war is for lilly livered pansies and obviously will not work. People in Syria are probably sitting around now laughing at the USA. I guess when a city is nuked we will get the right idea.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Perhaps you're right. If a city gets nuked, we would end up retaliating in kind. The question would be "against who" if the attack is like 9/11 and not state sponsored.

 

[MadRat]

$1 billion dollars a day is cheap compared to settling another 200K troops in there. I don't understand how they can rely on civilian bounty hunters and security firms to provide the gumshoe counter-insurgency effort. Its not like the 125K troops in Iraq alone can even come close to drawing any sort of real noose around a Baghdad let alone the whole country.

I get tired of hearing Al Queda this and that. They are not even officially in Iraq because they'd be beheaded, hung, burnt, and shot themselves. Instead, there are two Islamic terrorist organizations in Iraq, largely composed of foreigners, that have pledged their allegiance to al Qaeda, and several smaller ones that have not. The largest Islamic terrorist operation in Iraq is Jamaat Al-Tawhid Waal-Jihad - run by Abu Musab al Zarqawi - and is otherwise known as the al Zarqawi network, or "the al Qaeda in Iraq". There are only a few hundred active members of JTJ, at any one time to keep the casaulty rate sustainable and human network impenetrable by spies.

The other major terrorist operation in Iraq is Ansar al Islam. This outfit was formed in September, 2001, by merging several smaller Islamic radical organizations and taking control of several Kurdish villages in northern Iraq, on the Iranian border, and began imposing strict Islamic law on the inhabitants. Ansar wanted to turn Kurdish areas in northern Iraq and western Turkey into an Islamic republic. Ansar had some 700 armed members in that area. Iran and Saddam Hussein provided their weapons and money. Both Iraq and Iran were opposed to an independent Kurdish land. Just before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Kurds up north attacked the Ansar held villages and drove the surviving Ansar members into Iran. Over the last two years, Ansar al Islam members have quietly snuck back into northern Iraq.

Zarqawi has pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but that does not make his movement Al Queda. By early 2004, both JTJ and Ansar had made deals with Sunni Arabs, who wanted to regain power in Iraq. The Sunni Arabs would whatever support they could to supply money, weapons, and technical support to both groups. JTJ and Ansar would carry out suicide bombings against Americans and the new Iraqi government. With the Sunnis beginning to warm to the idea that they will only regain power when Americans leave, are now slowly curbing these same two groups. So in order for the Sunnis to feel secure themselves they are going to have to snuff out the JTJ and Answar before even the Americans leave.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yup; preaching Democracy, supporting tyranny, slaughter, gulags, torture, hunger, desease etc and not just in Iraq either.

Gulags...the new buzzword of the anti-Bush crowd.

Gulags were forced labor camps, essentially slave camps, that Stalin used to fuel his vision for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union...those sent to the camps were primarily from rural areas who resisted his communal farming program and other such Communist initiatives.

Gulags were also state sponsored slave camps, prison camps, and death traps that Stalin used to eliminate his political adversaries.

While what happened at Abu Ghraib is unacceptable, and many question what is happening at Gitmo, these crimes pale in comparison to the atrocities committed at the gulags of Stalin's reign...as much as you would like to think otherwise.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Even if we sent another 200K troops in there, we would just have an increase in casualty-rate. Just more troops for some dude in civilian clothes to take a pot-shot at and blend right back into the population. That's the way of urban guerilla warfare. We can't strike back without hurting innocents in the process. We end up giving the bad guys exactly what they want: an increase in anti-american sentiment and a culture of fear for honest Iraqis. What a f*&king mess! Thanks neocons!

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Yup; preaching Democracy, supporting tyranny, slaughter, gulags, torture, hunger, desease etc and not just in Iraq either.

Gulags...the new buzzword of the anti-Bush crowd.

Gulags were forced labor camps, essentially slave camps, that Stalin used to fuel his vision for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union...those sent to the camps were primarily from rural areas who resisted his communal farming program and other such Communist initiatives.

Gulags were also state sponsored slave camps, prison camps, and death traps that Stalin used to eliminate his political adversaries.

While what happened at Abu Ghraib is unacceptable, and many question what is happening at Gitmo, these crimes pale in comparison to the atrocities committed at the gulags of Stalin's reign...as much as you would like to think otherwise.

Duh. Wasn't there another thread for this subject? It's wrong to make the analogy and lump different atrocities together, just as it is wrong to lump any dissenter into the "anti-Bush" crowd. I supported Bush till he invaded Iraq.

 

[Pandaren]

This doesn't make sense at all because the victim (assuming that no other crime was commited against that victim) would still have support infrastructure in place.

Originally posted by: Zebo
Please that's akin to raping some girl and saying you forcably marry her to fix it. Compounding error with more error is'nt a fix. Send the checks if you want restitution but get out of her house

Simply writing checks is insufficient in the case of Iraq. Money isn't any good if there's nobody to oversee its use and nobody to maintain an environment where it can be used.

I believe that as idiotic as this whole war was, the US has an obligation to restore what it wrongly destroyed.

 

[maluckey]

MadRat

Funny that you should mention the non-Iraqi insurgents. Some of our dear readers still believe that they are Iraqi.

 

[irwincur]

Yay, more third hand reporting. This report (amazingly) was written (or bought) by a non US reporter living in the Green Zone. It was then sold (and probably re-edited) to an Arab reporter with ties to the Washington Post. The WP then bought it (and probably re-edited it) and then sold it to MSNBC. It finally found a home on MSNBC (after they most likely re-edited it).

Hell, who knows where this story began. It was probably a pro-US story before it was filtered through four levels of anti-American media. Further proof that unless you have men on the street (Fox News or Christian Science Monitor) then you don't know sh!t. They should actually begin to bust the reporters at the liberal papers for paying for Al Queda propagande. Could that not be classified as making payments in support of a terror organization?

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: maluckey
MadRat
Funny that you should mention the non-Iraqi insurgents. Some of our dear readers still believe that they are Iraqi.

The insurgency is Iraqis. The terrorist attacks are mainly by proxy. That is the non-Iraqi agents farm out the work to Iraqis for a few hundred dollars each mission. Most of the ones caught were doing it for $200 or less.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Duh. Wasn't there another thread for this subject? It's wrong to make the analogy and lump different atrocities together, just as it is wrong to lump any dissenter into the "anti-Bush" crowd. I supported Bush till he invaded Iraq.

Yes it is wrong to make analogies to other atrocities, which is why those opposed to Bush using references to Soviet gulags and Nazi Germany are totally off the mark.

I too supported Bush until the war in Iraq.

And yes it is also wrong to lump all dissenters into the anti-Bush crowd...but those using analogies such as gulags fall squarely in the middle of the partisan anti-Bush camp.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Hey everybody for S&G, do a google search for "insurgency mostly iraqis" then do a search for "insurgency mostly foreigners". I have to laugh. No wonder people are confused about this. A bunch of newspapers say one and a bunch say the other!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
This doesn't make sense at all because the victim (assuming that no other crime was commited against that victim) would still have support infrastructure in place.

Originally posted by: Zebo
Please that's akin to raping some girl and saying you forcably marry her to fix it. Compounding error with more error is'nt a fix. Send the checks if you want restitution but get out of her house

Simply writing checks is insufficient in the case of Iraq. Money isn't any good if there's nobody to oversee its use and nobody to maintain an environment where it can be used.

I believe that as idiotic as this whole war was, the US has an obligation to restore what it wrongly destroyed.

So that's the democrats response, spend more money as democrats love to do. I hear it from those self-serving hacks like Polisi and biden. That's thier critisim of Bush after all. That were not spending enough, not seeding enough troops, but they are neo-cons too. The Democratic leadership doesn't oppose the Iraq war, they voted for it, after all. How much money does it take to stop people from hating your guts? How you gonna "restore" those 100,000 lives and more if you add sactions and bombingsd of 12 years? You're not.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
Hey everybody for S&G, do a google search for "insurgency mostly iraqis" then do a search for "insurgency mostly foreigners". I have to laugh. No wonder people are confused about this. A bunch of newspapers say one and a bunch say the other!

I think they do that on purpose:

"Well, I guess we don't know who's really responsible, so fsck it...KILL EM ALL!"

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: maluckey
Gaard,

No, this first link is to an anonymous source, without any AP confirmation.

The second is interesting because Ali is stating that HE would not kill Iraqis.

Naji Abid Ali, who was clearing broken glass from in front of his clothing store, said he believed the attacks were calculated to intensify tensions between Iraq's newly ascendant Shiite majority and the Sunnis, who dominated under Saddam Hussein.

Note that he said NOTHING at all about american policy causing the issues.

The policy caused all this to happen.

I know, can you believe some people? How the hell do they think this happened? Incredible!

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yay, more third hand reporting. This report (amazingly) was written (or bought) by a non US reporter living in the Green Zone. It was then sold (and probably re-edited) to an Arab reporter with ties to the Washington Post. The WP then bought it (and probably re-edited it) and then sold it to MSNBC. It finally found a home on MSNBC (after they most likely re-edited it).

Hell, who knows where this story began. It was probably a pro-US story before it was filtered through four levels of anti-American media. Further proof that unless you have men on the street (Fox News or Christian Science Monitor) then you don't know sh!t. They should actually begin to bust the reporters at the liberal papers for paying for Al Queda propagande. Could that not be classified as making payments in support of a terror organization?

Yeah sure, it's all just propaganda. Nothing bad is happening boys and girls.... And those who report anything other than good news are terrorists.
Great. Another out of control right-winger....

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

In the streets of Baghdad, people wondered Thursday what else could possibly go wrong.

In Karrada, a commercial district across the Tigris River from the city's fortified Green Zone, wreckage was still smoldering hours after four car bombs exploded shortly after dawn, killing 17 people and wounding 20. Water sprayed on the resulting fires commingled in pools with blood. On the north side of the city, in Shuala -- like Karrada, an area populated mostly by Shiite Muslims -- similar scenes played out in the wake of a triple car bombing that had killed 15 people the night before.


Among Baghdad's many hardships, the lack of security surpasses all the rest, according to those interviewed. In the four weeks after the country's Shiite-led government was finally installed in late April, attacks carried out by the mostly Sunni insurgents killed more than 900 people across the country and sent fear through Baghdad's neighborhoods. After a brief lull in early June that coincided with the start of a security crackdown in and around Baghdad, the bombings resumed.

It looks like "freedom" and "Democracy" are not all Bush would have people believe they are. The disconnect between the Administration's claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes" and reality has never been so stark.
I also read today that the U.S. Gov has been trying to negotiate with the terrorists in Iraq. Interesting development, since the official U.S. policy is to not engage in negotiations with terrorists....
So, when will they finally face facts and set a timetable for withdrawal?
Link

We played and are still playing too nice... Bomb Syria, nuke Iran and Suadi... then watch the insurgency suddenly calm down.

-Max

 

[irwincur]

Yeah sure, it's all just propaganda. Nothing bad is happening boys and girls.... And those who report anything other than good news are terrorists.

Never said that. But if you look at the detail of the article and trace it, the conclusions become questionable very quickly.

Yes, men and women are dying over there. They are soldiers and they signed up to serve. I personally have friends over there - and they are all more than aware of a) the danger and b) their commitment. That being said, they all love the work they are doing and I have heard nothing negative coming from them about any of the 'normal' press complaints - equipment, money, danger, etc...



The fact of the matter is, there are only two news organizations that I know of that allow their 'reporters' out of the Green Zone and into the field to get real news. The rest do what they did in Vietnam - pay locals to go out and dig up the news from them. All to often, a local will find a connection with the opposition, see easy money, and return propaganda as news.

In Vietnam there was a very high profile case where a major network was busted paying a Viet Cong spy for 'news'. In return, they gave him shelter and relayed information to him at his request. He was posing as a North Vietmanese reporter - and they never knew. With the news that this network passed to him, he was instrumental in planning the Tet offensive. Even worse is that once the truth was found out - the network still went to bat for him, even giving him a roast many years later in NYC - for being such a good friend.

This is similar to what is happening in Iraq. The media is being lazy and selfish not realizing the danger that they pose. Anything to get the great anti-American story which will guarantee them an award at the end of the year.

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: arsbanned

In the streets of Baghdad, people wondered Thursday what else could possibly go wrong.

In Karrada, a commercial district across the Tigris River from the city's fortified Green Zone, wreckage was still smoldering hours after four car bombs exploded shortly after dawn, killing 17 people and wounding 20. Water sprayed on the resulting fires commingled in pools with blood. On the north side of the city, in Shuala -- like Karrada, an area populated mostly by Shiite Muslims -- similar scenes played out in the wake of a triple car bombing that had killed 15 people the night before.


Among Baghdad's many hardships, the lack of security surpasses all the rest, according to those interviewed. In the four weeks after the country's Shiite-led government was finally installed in late April, attacks carried out by the mostly Sunni insurgents killed more than 900 people across the country and sent fear through Baghdad's neighborhoods. After a brief lull in early June that coincided with the start of a security crackdown in and around Baghdad, the bombings resumed.

It looks like "freedom" and "Democracy" are not all Bush would have people believe they are. The disconnect between the Administration's claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes" and reality has never been so stark.
I also read today that the U.S. Gov has been trying to negotiate with the terrorists in Iraq. Interesting development, since the official U.S. policy is to not engage in negotiations with terrorists....
So, when will they finally face facts and set a timetable for withdrawal?
Link

Umm, Bush never said the insurgency was in it's "last throes." If you look closely, he actually said we have a lot of fighting left to do, and it could be years... Cheney was just talking out of his ass. Bush's comments take precidence since he is the Prez.

So it's ok for the #2 guy to boldly lie to the American public (see a pattern here my friend?) as long as the #1 guy says it's not true.... the bigger picture is why do you have the #2 guy LYING in the first place?!

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Yay, more third hand reporting. This report (amazingly) was written (or bought) by a non US reporter living in the Green Zone. It was then sold (and probably re-edited) to an Arab reporter with ties to the Washington Post. The WP then bought it (and probably re-edited it) and then sold it to MSNBC. It finally found a home on MSNBC (after they most likely re-edited it).

Hell, who knows where this story began. It was probably a pro-US story before it was filtered through four levels of anti-American media. Further proof that unless you have men on the street (Fox News or Christian Science Monitor) then you don't know sh!t. They should actually begin to bust the reporters at the liberal papers for paying for Al Queda propagande. Could that not be classified as making payments in support of a terror organization?

Further proof that I will be skipping over all of your posts from now on. And im sure you can respond back in kind. You can't equate Fox News to anything other than dog sh!t.
Damn man, take off your right-wing tin foil hat about the media. In case you haven't noticed, they're mostly on your side dummy!

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: arsbanned

In the streets of Baghdad, people wondered Thursday what else could possibly go wrong.

In Karrada, a commercial district across the Tigris River from the city's fortified Green Zone, wreckage was still smoldering hours after four car bombs exploded shortly after dawn, killing 17 people and wounding 20. Water sprayed on the resulting fires commingled in pools with blood. On the north side of the city, in Shuala -- like Karrada, an area populated mostly by Shiite Muslims -- similar scenes played out in the wake of a triple car bombing that had killed 15 people the night before.


Among Baghdad's many hardships, the lack of security surpasses all the rest, according to those interviewed. In the four weeks after the country's Shiite-led government was finally installed in late April, attacks carried out by the mostly Sunni insurgents killed more than 900 people across the country and sent fear through Baghdad's neighborhoods. After a brief lull in early June that coincided with the start of a security crackdown in and around Baghdad, the bombings resumed.

It looks like "freedom" and "Democracy" are not all Bush would have people believe they are. The disconnect between the Administration's claim that the insurgency is in its "last throes" and reality has never been so stark.
I also read today that the U.S. Gov has been trying to negotiate with the terrorists in Iraq. Interesting development, since the official U.S. policy is to not engage in negotiations with terrorists....
So, when will they finally face facts and set a timetable for withdrawal?
Link

We played and are still playing too nice... Bomb Syria, nuke Iran and Suadi... then watch the insurgency suddenly calm down.

-Max

Yeah right, with what resources. We don't even have enough troops in Iraq as it is!
You're seriously deluded. Despite what you've apparently been told, America is not some juggernaut that can attack the entire World at will. It actually has limitations.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Yeah sure, it's all just propaganda. Nothing bad is happening boys and girls.... And those who report anything other than good news are terrorists.

Never said that. But if you look at the detail of the article and trace it, the conclusions become questionable very quickly.

Yes, men and women are dying over there. They are soldiers and they signed up to serve. I personally have friends over there - and they are all more than aware of a) the danger and b) their commitment. That being said, they all love the work they are doing and I have heard nothing negative coming from them about any of the 'normal' press complaints - equipment, money, danger, etc...



The fact of the matter is, there are only two news organizations that I know of that allow their 'reporters' out of the Green Zone and into the field to get real news. The rest do what they did in Vietnam - pay locals to go out and dig up the news from them. All to often, a local will find a connection with the opposition, see easy money, and return propaganda as news.

In Vietnam there was a very high profile case where a major network was busted paying a Viet Cong spy for 'news'. In return, they gave him shelter and relayed information to him at his request. He was posing as a North Vietmanese reporter - and they never knew. With the news that this network passed to him, he was instrumental in planning the Tet offensive. Even worse is that once the truth was found out - the network still went to bat for him, even giving him a roast many years later in NYC - for being such a good friend.

This is similar to what is happening in Iraq. The media is being lazy and selfish not realizing the danger that they pose. Anything to get the great anti-American story which will guarantee them an award at the end of the year.

You equate journalists who don't support the Fox News Propaganda line with terror supporters then. Big difference. :roll:
What poses a danger to the troops, Iraqi civilians and Americans is George Bush's policies, NOT the news media. It's patently absurd to claim the media is what has put us in danger. It comes right out of the Karl Rove playbook.
I am glad you're beginning to see the similarities between 'nam and Iraq.