• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Condi Rice is at it again.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that Iraq's national reconciliation has moved along "quite remarkably," citing a new law that lets thousands of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party reclaim government jobs or pensions.

Rice, who split off from President Bush's Mideast tour for a surprise visit to Baghdad, said the Iraqi parliament's approval Saturday of the U.S.-sought benchmark law was a first step and showed that last year's "surge" of American forces was paying dividends.

"It is clearly a step forward for national reconciliation ? a step forward for healing the wounds of the past, and it will have to be followed up by implementation that is in the same spirit of national reconciliation," she said during a news conference with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

Meanwhile, in an interview published Tuesday by The New York Times, Iraq's defense minister said the country would not be able to assume full responsibility for internal security until 2012 and be unable to defend its borders until at least 2018.

"According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country," said the minister, Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi.

"In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020," he said.



You would think a well educated person like Condi would remember it was the U.S. irrational and highly criticized decision which imposed draconian sanctions on former Baath party members.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
And you would think that meeting a key benchmark would be good news for the anti-war nutjobs. Guess not.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,992
5,037
126
You pro-war nutjobs supported the whole debaathification in the first place and created that mess that killed thousands of our military men.
Not surprising for a party that is collectively dumber than the Dixie Chicks :D
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
When thats the sole achievement, what else can Condi say? But since the Bath party basically equals the Sunnis, its going to disturb both the Shias and the Kurds who don't exactly have fond memories of the Bath party.

The other problem is, the Iraqis know what going on in the USA. Early on in the GWB Presidency, Condi was the de facto Secretary of State and Powell was just a figurehead.
Because anyone who was anyone knew Condi had the ear of the GWB and Powell did not.
So a Condi promise meant something. And now that Condi is a short timer, her word is worthless for any time longer than a year. And for that matter, ALL OF HER PREDICTIONS WERE WORTHLESS BEFORE SHE EVEN SAID THEM.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,650
1,883
126
You would think a well educated person like Condi would remember it was the U.S. irrational and highly criticized decision which imposed draconian sanctions on former Baath party members.
Damned if you do...damned if you don't. There is no question that we made some terrible strategic mistakes that set the stage for a sectarian split in Iraq, almost resulting in a Civil War.

What is encouraging is that the various factions, insurgent groups and remnants of the Baathist regime are now cooperating with America to rid Iraq of an Al Quaida influence...and that Iraq as a nation is making strides towards reconciliation and self-reliance.

We often hear of holding the Iraqis to benchmarks, and using those benchmarks to set a withdrawal strategy.

This is an encouraging development, and it is appropriate for Condi to recognize it as such...thereby giving political legitimacy to the Baathist remnants.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: senseamp
You pro-war nutjobs supported the whole debaathification in the first place and created that mess that killed thousands of our military men.
Not surprising for a party that is collectively dumber than the Dixie Chicks :D
The sectarian violence in Iraq was primarily executed by the Shi'ites. It was retribution for 3 decades of murder, injustice, and oppression under Saddam and his Ba'athist henchmen.

De-Ba'athification was absolutely necessary for Iraq as a whole. There's no way that most Iraqis, who are NOT Sunnis, would have accepted keeping the Ba'ath party in positions of power in a new government initially. It would have appeared as if the status quo was being maintained and that nothing was really changing.

Of course the BDSers in here would have complained either way. If we hasn't insisted on De-Ba'athification instead they'd be claiing that the dumbest thing the Bush admin did in Iraq was allow the Ba'ath party to remain in power and we'd hear all sorts of fearmongering predictions from them about how the Ba'athists would reform and rise once again to control Iraq, just like under Saddam.

But that's just what the BDSers do. They don't think. They just shut their eyes and lash out with whatever they think they can grab onto. They make the Dixie Chicks look like Eisteins.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
So basically the Iraqis themselves see the wisdom in the Democrats recommendations and are implementing them.
Congrats Democrats, on being right. Yet again.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,650
1,883
126
So basically the Iraqis themselves see the wisdom in the Democrats recommendations and are implementing them. Congrats Democrats, on being right. Yet again.
What are you basing this conclusion on?
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
So basically the Iraqis themselves see the wisdom in the Democrats recommendations and are implementing them. Congrats Democrats, on being right. Yet again.
What are you basing this conclusion on?
Reality.

 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,707
5
0
I am just wondering when is Iraq going to be safe enough that our top ranking government officials don't have to make "surprise" visits there?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: lozina
I am just wondering when is Iraq going to be safe enough that our top ranking government officials don't have to make "surprise" visits there?
Ask the many Democrats that have visited there recently and come back telling us how Iraq has improved. Seems it was safe enough for them.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: senseamp

Not surprising for a party that is collectively dumber than the Dixie Chicks :D
Don't go knocking the Dixie Chicks. They're smart enough to know what pieces of shit the Bushwhackos' and their war of LIES are and brave enough to stand up and say it in public.

That's more than the Bushwhackos have managed in seven years.

:thumbsup: for the Dixie Chicks.

The de-Baathification law is one of 18 steps which the United States considers benchmarks to promoting reconciliation among the country's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.
So, with infamous "surge" now well past its target date, the Iraqi puppets finally managed to enact one of eighteen benchmarks it was supposed to allow to happen, and how well even that will be implemented is open to question. :roll:

Condi should have stuck with playing the piano. At least, thousands wouldn't die every time she does something stupid. :thumbsdown:
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: techs
You would think a well educated person like Condi would remember it was the U.S. irrational and highly criticized decision which imposed draconian sanctions on former Baath party members.
That was one of Paul Bremer's first 3 (disastrous) orders when he took over the CPA.

The other 2 were: disbanding the army and not paying them & disbanding the Iraq support group.

Collectively, probably the root of Iraqi insurgency against the Americans.



 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I don't know where TastesLikeChicken got---The sectarian violence in Iraq was primarily executed by the Shi'ites. It was retribution for 3 decades of murder, injustice, and oppression under Saddam and his Ba'athist henchmen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in fact much of the anti-US violence came from the Sunnis. The concept of a coming democracy meant that all the Shias had to do was wait for that day. And it was the Sunnis that were handed that lose lose deal. And since Al-Quida and Shias don't see eye to eye, a good part of the surge credited drop in violence resulted when the Sunnis themselves decided Al-Quida was not acting in their self interests.

Most of the violence in the Shia insugencies have been directed at ethnic cleansing of Sunnis.
And not at the US. And in fact, the largest Shia insurgent leader named Al Sadr has an open ended non aggression pact with the US.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,331
4,026
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: senseamp
You pro-war nutjobs supported the whole debaathification in the first place and created that mess that killed thousands of our military men.
Not surprising for a party that is collectively dumber than the Dixie Chicks :D
The sectarian violence in Iraq was primarily executed by the Shi'ites. It was retribution for 3 decades of murder, injustice, and oppression under Saddam and his Ba'athist henchmen.

De-Ba'athification was absolutely necessary for Iraq as a whole. There's no way that most Iraqis, who are NOT Sunnis, would have accepted keeping the Ba'ath party in positions of power in a new government initially. It would have appeared as if the status quo was being maintained and that nothing was really changing.

Of course the BDSers in here would have complained either way. If we hasn't insisted on De-Ba'athification instead they'd be claiing that the dumbest thing the Bush admin did in Iraq was allow the Ba'ath party to remain in power and we'd hear all sorts of fearmongering predictions from them about how the Ba'athists would reform and rise once again to control Iraq, just like under Saddam.

But that's just what the BDSers do. They don't think. They just shut their eyes and lash out with whatever they think they can grab onto. They make the Dixie Chicks look like Eisteins.
Hehe, nothing like reading a debate about whether it was wiser to grab a turd when the toilet you're in is flushed or riding it out on toilet paper. Some titanic imbecile got us into this illegal and unnecessary war.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I don't know where TastesLikeChicken got---The sectarian violence in Iraq was primarily executed by the Shi'ites. It was retribution for 3 decades of murder, injustice, and oppression under Saddam and his Ba'athist henchmen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When in fact much of the anti-US violence came from the Sunnis. The concept of a coming democracy meant that all the Shias had to do was wait for that day. And it was the Sunnis that were handed that lose lose deal. And since Al-Quida and Shias don't see eye to eye, a good part of the surge credited drop in violence resulted when the Sunnis themselves decided Al-Quida was not acting in their self interests.

Most of the violence in the Shia insugencies have been directed at ethnic cleansing of Sunnis.
And not at the US. And in fact, the largest Shia insurgent leader named Al Sadr has an open ended non aggression pact with the US.
In one sentence you claim you don't know where I got that the sectarian violence in Iraq was primarily executed by the Shi'ites, then you turn right around and agree with me.

And we've heard your pathetic attempt at trying to marginalize the effects of the Surge before. It's a superficial ascertation of the situation and completely fails to recognize that it was the US that made the inroads with the tribal chiefs in Anbar, organized them, and fought right along side them to make it possible for them to obliterate AQI. But of course you couldn't possibly manage to bring yourself to admit the success of the Surge and our contributions to turning the Sunnis around. It'd blow all the partisan and ideological bullshit that you spread around in here right out of the water if you had to recognize reality.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: techs

You would think a well educated person like Condi would remember it was the U.S. irrational and highly criticized decision which imposed draconian sanctions on former Baath party members.
And I would think a partisan hack like yourself would remember this Iraqi step was mandated in Dem "benchmark" legislation.

And of course Rice has to announce it, it's her fricken job.

BTW: in 1998 under Bill Clinton the USA adopted a policy of regime change in Iraq. That means removing the Baathists from power.

Fern
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
this is DISGUSTING..what the hell is wrong with some of you people..
these sick bastards worked for saddam, i dont give a shit if maybe some of them didnt have a choice..you dont just PUT them back into power..WTF ARE YOU THINKING?

ever since the beginning of the war the RE-BATH has been occurring..we kicked this country's ass and now we are going to put in the same people who supposedly were hurting them..what is wrong with this twisted world..?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
The other TLC delusion is that the Iraqi insurgencies have all that much to do with Al-Quida. Our own NIE places the AL-Quida part at no more than 15% of the total. And unlike GWB&co bleating about a global war on terrorism, there was no Al-Quida in Iraq before GWB invaded.

The point being, the Shia insurgencies have sufficiently segregated Iraq so they have run low on easy ethnic cleansing, the Sunnis became disenchanted with Al-Quida and now have a temporary marriage of convince with the US, but the ability of the various home grown insurgencies are as potent as ever. And if anything threatens any of those insurgencies, violence could return to what it was at any moment.

And in a manner similar to Afghanistan, Iraq is now effectively portioned into a large number of personal fiefdoms. The Iraqi central government in the green zone might as well be on the moon for all the good its doing. Maliki is a figurehead and the function of Iraqi legislature is to prevent anything from threatening those personal fiefdoms. At least McCain is honest, the lid is only kept on as long as we are there and a 100 years will make no difference.

Until the power of the local Iraqi insurgencies are confronted and broken, the mini surge is just a slogan.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other TLC delusion is that the Iraqi insurgencies have all that much to do with Al-Quida. Our own NIE places the AL-Quida part at no more than 15% of the total. And unlike GWB&co bleating about a global war on terrorism, there was no Al-Quida in Iraq before GWB invaded.
Apparently it's your delusion since I didn't make any statement whatsoever regarding cooperation between the Iraq insurgencies and AQI.

As far as there being no al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded, that talking point was dismissed long ago by anyone daring to venture outside of DailyKOS or HuffPo fever swamps.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
TLC sure has a long memory when he makes the following post at 10'16 PM---Apparently it's your delusion since I didn't make any statement whatsoever regarding cooperation between the Iraq insurgencies and AQI.


Yet at 3:38 PM today TLC made the following statement---And we've heard your pathetic attempt at trying to marginalize the effects of the Surge before. It's a superficial ascertation of the situation and completely fails to recognize that it was the US that made the inroads with the tribal chiefs in Anbar, organized them, and fought right along side them to make it possible for them to obliterate AQI. But of course you couldn't possibly manage to bring yourself to admit the success of the Surge and our contributions to turning the Sunnis around. It'd blow all the partisan and ideological bullshit that you spread around in here right out of the water if you had to recognize reality.

The point being TLC, if we are going to understand how to solve the problems of Iraq, we have to be honest in our histories and also understand what motivates these insurgents. And also understand the motivations of the bulk of the Iraqi people who are not involved in any insurgent activities but are caught between US troops and insurgent groups as they merely try to survive all the hazards. By now hundreds of thousand of Iraqis have died and as many as two million are now in exile.

While I will concede that Iraq has somewhat improved, I think that improvement has almost nothing to do with the surge strategy outlined by GWB. But as long as the current status quo remains, Iraq may stay somewhat quiet or blow up tomorrow. But no real progress has been made because the insurgencies will fight if anything threatens their gains. Meaning that anarchy is likely to fossilize for the foreseeable future. The death toll may be reduced some but the monetary cost of the occupation is unchanged. Sooner or later some entities will try to expand and up will go the violence.

See the somewhat parallel thread on this forum--titled we will be in Iraq forever or words to that effect. The point being, the US voter will not support an occupation that makes no progress and GWB policies will go the way of the dodo in less than a year. And if the GOP comes to its senses, it may be a matter of only months.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC sure has a long memory when he makes the following post at 10'16 PM---Apparently it's your delusion since I didn't make any statement whatsoever regarding cooperation between the Iraq insurgencies and AQI.


Yet at 3:38 PM today TLC made the following statement---And we've heard your pathetic attempt at trying to marginalize the effects of the Surge before. It's a superficial ascertation of the situation and completely fails to recognize that it was the US that made the inroads with the tribal chiefs in Anbar, organized them, and fought right along side them to make it possible for them to obliterate AQI. But of course you couldn't possibly manage to bring yourself to admit the success of the Surge and our contributions to turning the Sunnis around. It'd blow all the partisan and ideological bullshit that you spread around in here right out of the water if you had to recognize reality.

The point being TLC, if we are going to understand how to solve the problems of Iraq, we have to be honest in our histories and also understand what motivates these insurgents. And also understand the motivations of the bulk of the Iraqi people who are not involved in any insurgent activities but are caught between US troops and insurgent groups as they merely try to survive all the hazards. By now hundreds of thousand of Iraqis have died and as many as two million are now in exile.

While I will concede that Iraq has somewhat improved, I think that improvement has almost nothing to do with the surge strategy outlined by GWB. But as long as the current status quo remains, Iraq may stay somewhat quiet or blow up tomorrow. But no real progress has been made because the insurgencies will fight if anything threatens their gains. Meaning that anarchy is likely to fossilize for the foreseeable future. The death toll may be reduced some but the monetary cost of the occupation is unchanged. Sooner or later some entities will try to expand and up will go the violence.

See the somewhat parallel thread on this forum--titled we will be in Iraq forever or words to that effect. The point being, the US voter will not support an occupation that makes no progress and GWB policies will go the way of the dodo in less than a year. And if the GOP comes to its senses, it may be a matter of only months.
You're impossible to have any discussion with because your comprehension skills suck. Once again, I didn't make any statement whatsoever regarding cooperation between the Iraq insurgencies and AQI. Next time try reading what I said instead of what you imagine I said. They are nowhere near the same things.

And if you EVER manage to make a viable point in this forum with your inane, BDS-fueled ramblings I'd be absolutely floored.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
As TLC degenerates to making no points with---You're impossible to have any discussion with because your comprehension skills suck. Once again, I didn't make any statement whatsoever regarding cooperation between the Iraq insurgencies and AQI. Next time try reading what I said instead of what you imagine I said. They are nowhere near the same things.

And if you EVER manage to make a viable point in this forum with your inane, BDS-fueled ramblings I'd be absolutely floored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being TLC, you seem to have no comprehension of what happened in the past in Iraq, why things are like they are now, and where things will go in the future. Iraq is an ever moving target and thus far there is zero evidence that things are getting better in Iraq.

Without political progress, its just a matter of time before the insurgencies resume the fight and the US Sunni co-operation is just a temporary marriage of convince.

So other than defending the surge or making subtle points of difference on my version of your revisionist history, where do you think things will go in the future of Iraq.?

Although I don't endorse the various rapid force reduction plans and prefer using diplomatic options, long odds, that appears to be what will happen to our occupation in Iraq. An occupation almost preordained to fail the day Rumsfeld decided to ignore Shinseki.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TLC degenerates to making no points with---You're impossible to have any discussion with because your comprehension skills suck. Once again, I didn't make any statement whatsoever regarding cooperation between the Iraq insurgencies and AQI. Next time try reading what I said instead of what you imagine I said. They are nowhere near the same things.

And if you EVER manage to make a viable point in this forum with your inane, BDS-fueled ramblings I'd be absolutely floored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point being TLC, you seem to have no comprehension of what happened in the past in Iraq, why things are like they are now, and where things will go in the future. Iraq is an ever moving target and thus far there is zero evidence that things are getting better in Iraq.

Without political progress, its just a matter of time before the insurgencies resume the fight and the US Sunni co-operation is just a temporary marriage of convince.

So other than defending the surge or making subtle points of difference on my version of your revisionist history, where do you think things will go in the future of Iraq.?

Although I don't endorse the various rapid force reduction plans and prefer using diplomatic options, long odds, that appears to be what will happen to our occupation in Iraq. An occupation almost preordained to fail the day Rumsfeld decided to ignore Shinseki.
The point being that you can't manage to comprehend a thing I say and it's no different from you comprehending what others say about Iraq. The point that you don't seem to get is that Iraq is making political progress and you are still trying to spit on it. This reconciliation with old Sunni Ba'ath party members (at least the ones who were decent during Saddam's reign) will go a ways towards quelling some of the remaining violence in Iraq. But here you are claiming the sky could be falling instead. Despite all the positive movement and forward gains recently in Iraq you're still hoping for the worst. It's just a matter of time according to LL.

As far as what I think....Iraq will continue to progress. Progress won't always be steady, and there may be steps backwards in the future. But overall Iraq will muddle through as they and we have continued to do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY