Fierce battle underway in Basra

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
LOL. Semantics?

The best you can generally do in here is continually insist the other person is wrong and that you are somehow the sole bearer of ultimate truth, and how DARE anyone disagree with your so thoroughly knowledgeable and informed proclamations.

Drop the BS, kid. Simply stomping your foot and essentially proclaiming "I'm right, you're wrong!" doesn't hold any water and seems kind of pre-teen in its execution.

Nor did I claim that Maliki has scored any sort of decisive victory. Those are words you're trying to put in my mouth so as to creat a straw man, another common tactic of yours in here. My claim was that Sadr "blinked" and that his face was bloodied in this conflict, which is completely true. Since this hasn't played out entirely yet it's a bit premature to proclaim any "decisive" victory, though I would say that Maliki easily has the upper hand at this point. Yet not jumping on the Sadr train and not claiming that it was 'Maliki who has lost' (in your best Nelson "Ha ha" voice) somehow is viewed the very same as saying that Maliki scored a "decisive" victory. You really should stop running my words through your own spin cyle and subsequently regurgitating them as something completely different.

I'm glad you're not descending into hyperbole or anything. You said something wrong about the 2006 Lebanon conflict and then I corrected you. I supplied support for my view, while you just called the people who agreed with me 'stupid'. Don't think I've missed the hilarity of you calling the Israelis stupid for thinking that their own war that you said they won was a failure.

With the Maliki thing you're now trying to back away from what you clearly asserted in your other posts. That's fine. Now that you've come to my position on the issue I don't really care to go back and beat you up more on what you've previously posted.

 

[Lemon law]

I leave anandtech to go do something else real in the heartland, come back, and TLC is still defending his version of the truth as the ONLY VERSION with---Sadr had to back down because his men were getting obliterated. Despite this "fierce resistance" that the MSM crows about he was losing 70+ men a day. Many more were injured, or captured. Sadr knew the numbers game and knew he couldn't sustain those losses, so he retreated. While the spinmeisters in the West may view that retreat as a victory-----blah blah blah.---words words words.

Which perfectly explains the fact that the USA is still a colony of England and sings God Save the Queen, the British still occupy India, we won in Vietnam, Hezbollah no longer exists, all the Iraqi insurgencies are now routed, no rockets are being fired at the green zone, Maliki has won, so it time to come home and award the Nobel Peace prize to GWB.

Never mind what else everyone else says, TLC is always right. And if independent journalists have some different opinion, they are biased, and if they remotely agree with TLC, it just means TLC is correct. And if truth be told, they are right because they they read TLC's posts on P&N, and forgot to properly attribute the source.

We are quite clearly talking about a TLC majority of one. And as they say, majority rules.

I do indeed owe an apology for Eskimospy, for trying to retain some semblance of sanity in this thread.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
LOL. Semantics?

The best you can generally do in here is continually insist the other person is wrong and that you are somehow the sole bearer of ultimate truth, and how DARE anyone disagree with your so thoroughly knowledgeable and informed proclamations.

Drop the BS, kid. Simply stomping your foot and essentially proclaiming "I'm right, you're wrong!" doesn't hold any water and seems kind of pre-teen in its execution.

Nor did I claim that Maliki has scored any sort of decisive victory. Those are words you're trying to put in my mouth so as to creat a straw man, another common tactic of yours in here. My claim was that Sadr "blinked" and that his face was bloodied in this conflict, which is completely true. Since this hasn't played out entirely yet it's a bit premature to proclaim any "decisive" victory, though I would say that Maliki easily has the upper hand at this point. Yet not jumping on the Sadr train and not claiming that it was 'Maliki who has lost' (in your best Nelson "Ha ha" voice) somehow is viewed the very same as saying that Maliki scored a "decisive" victory. You really should stop running my words through your own spin cyle and subsequently regurgitating them as something completely different.

I'm glad you're not descending into hyperbole or anything. You said something wrong about the 2006 Lebanon conflict and then I corrected you. I supplied support for my view, while you just called the people who agreed with me 'stupid'. Don't think I've missed the hilarity of you calling the Israelis stupid for thinking that their own war that you said they won was a failure.

With the Maliki thing you're now trying to back away from what you clearly asserted in your other posts. That's fine. Now that you've come to my position on the issue I don't really care to go back and beat you up more on what you've previously posted.

I corrected you about the Lebanon conlict where you made a claim about Israel's goal and Hezbollah's goals while ignoring the actual facts of the situation and ignored Hezbollah's goals for initiating the conflict. But I imagine you'll go on your merry way as usual as if you were 100% correct in the matter.

As far as the Winograd report, can you show me where it actually says that Hezbollah won? Can you also show me where I said that "Israel won?" I said that "Hezbollah got their asses kicked," and they did.

I'll be waiting for you to put more words in my mouth...again, or make some screwy pedantic post about how saying this really means that while whining about someone else resorting to semantics.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I corrected you about the Lebanon conlict where you made a claim about Israel's goal and Hezbollah's goals while ignoring the actual facts of the situation and ignored Hezbollah's goals for initiating the conflict. But I imagine you'll go on your merry way as usual as if you were 100% correct in the matter.

As far as the Winograd report, can you show me where it actually says that Hezbollah won? Can you also show me where I said that "Israel won?" I said that "Hezbollah got their asses kicked," and they did.

I'll be waiting for you to put more words in my mouth...again, or make some screwy pedantic post about how saying this really means that while whining about someone else resorting to semantics.

Oh my god... hahaha. I'm so not doing another argument with you on the definition of some word. First it was if the Bush Doctrine existed, then I remember seeing you flailing around against another group of incredibly patient people about some other word, now it's the definition of victory. After losing the substance, then and only then you retreat into definitions and semantics as a way to attempt to salvage some dignity.

You are way too old to be arguing in this manner. Stop it.

Oh and Lemon Law, no harm no foul. I still love you!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I corrected you about the Lebanon conlict where you made a claim about Israel's goal and Hezbollah's goals while ignoring the actual facts of the situation and ignored Hezbollah's goals for initiating the conflict. But I imagine you'll go on your merry way as usual as if you were 100% correct in the matter.

As far as the Winograd report, can you show me where it actually says that Hezbollah won? Can you also show me where I said that "Israel won?" I said that "Hezbollah got their asses kicked," and they did.

I'll be waiting for you to put more words in my mouth...again, or make some screwy pedantic post about how saying this really means that while whining about someone else resorting to semantics.

Oh my god... hahaha. I'm so not doing another argument with you on the definition of some word. First it was if the Bush Doctrine existed, then I remember seeing you flailing around against another group of incredibly patient people about some other word, now it's the definition of victory. After losing the substance, then and only then you retreat into definitions and semantics as a way to attempt to salvage some dignity.

You are way too old to be arguing in this manner. Stop it.

Oh and Lemon Law, no harm no foul. I still love you!

It very clear who's flailing in this thread and it's not me.

It's fun watching you flopping around tho.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As various posters argue on who got smoked between Al Sadr and Maliki, there seems to be little comment about the other dog in the fight, namely the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, that other Shia political party, and how that is likely to effect their future Iraqi support in the upcoming October elections.

But one question has been answered rather definitively, and there is little remaining doubt that Al Sadr retains effective command and control of the Mahdi army. And even in Sadr city, the Mahdi army fighters have vanished from the streets.

Somewhat visibly demonstrating for all to see, that if Maliki wants to feel froggie still, this time the fault will lie 100% with Maliki.

There seems to be little comment on the Sunnis as well. The Sunnis have long viewed Maliki as nothing more than a tool of certain radical Shi'ite elements in Iraq and that he encouraged the Shi'ite persecution of the Sunnis. His continuing refusal to go after the Mahdi Army was proof of that to them. Now he has demonstrated otherwise.

There are quite a few other pov's that haven't been looked at or considered in here as well. One is that just because Sadr is Shi'ite it doesn't mean he has any sort of unanimous Shi'ite support. He doesn't by any means. Most of his support comes from the poor and uneducated. In fact, a lot of Shi'ites don't like him because of his cozy relationship with Iran and the previous election showed how widespread his support was. So the idea that Sadr might be elected to a high office that amounts to anything besides the head of a very small minority party in Iraq is basically a fairy tale.

So what you are sayiing is that the US fucked this up? Why so many words, everyone already knows that.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

Uhmmmm... you realize most people (the Bush administration included) say Hezbollah won that war right?

No, no rational person would ever say that, not ONE (well the Bush administration isn't exactly filled with rational people, are they?).

Israel pulled back because of the UN, they could have leveled Lebanon without using nukes if they wanted to, they didn't even involve airsupport more than a few choppers that were not even equipped with target bombing equipment.

The truth is that Israel could singelhandedly take on every neighbouring country at once if they wanted to, Hezbollah... well they are just a terrorist organisation that they let go because it wasn't worth it when they hid amongst civilians while firing. That is the general story of Israel, they really get no chance to do anything because everytime they do it involves a shitload of civilian deaths because that is what Hamas and Hezbolla loves, it makes stupid people like you agree with them.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC self proclaims---It very clear who's flailing in this thread and it's not me.

To TLC---you are truly a legend in your own mind.

For your next trick, try describing reality for a change. Because if you can't describe reality, you can't predict a damn thing.

Even if you think someone else is flailing around, the acid test is, you are flailing around when you can't pass the predictive tests.

And you can't accuse anyone of putting word in your mouth when you are saying Maliki is the big winner here and Al Sadr is the big loser. You have said that over and over and over again ad nasiem big lie cheer leading.

You TLC have done gone down on record and have made a prediction. And your credibility will flush down the toilet if you are wrong. SIMPLE AS THAT BOTTOM LINE.

On the other hand, your critics have said its not as simple as you portray. Without making any concrete predictions.

Actually I hope you are right, I am not trying to be a doom and gloom cheer leader, merely a realist. But if Maliki falls and Al Sadr remains alive and well, we will all have an answer on exactly how credible you are TLC. No one asked you to paint your self into a corner of your own making, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Lemon law]

And now JOS further muddies the waters with---The truth is that Israel could singelhandedly take on every neighboring country at once if they wanted to. And then ignores the fact they Israel will not have enough people to maintain the occupations of all those conquered countries as they become breeding grounds for terrorists. And its exactly why Hezbollah was an Israeli creation.

And goes on to boast---Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britains never ever ever will be slaves.

Are we in fact talking about the same country that was conquered by the Norman French, the same country that, like Japan, was saved a divine wind, and came just a hair breath
of being conquered by the Spanish. And the same country that went on to build perhaps the largest and most effective colonial empire in world history. Arriving at perhaps its peak during the late Victorian era. Do not get me wrong, that is truly a record to be proud of.

But the 20'th century has not been kind to Great Briton, you folks have truly written the manual on how to blow it and fail in every occupation. Lets maybe start with the Brits creation of Iraq and the bungled British occupation of Iraq that failed some 17 years later.

Lets fast forward to Tony Blair thus sparing you all the other gory failures in the interim. But getting back to Tony Blair, we are talking a fool that bought the GWB line hook line and sinker. And GWB gave you Brits the cush job of securing the South of Iraq with no sectarian violence because it was all Shia. And after all, its hard to have sectarian violence when there is only one sect. But minor detail and triviality, the shia insurgencies rapped up the South of Iraq at incredible speed. And then the British choice was made clear. The Brits could take control and the causalities that came with it or the Shias could let the Brits pretend they were in control when they were not. And take low causalities as a result. We all know you Brits took the latter bargain. And when you Brits got tired of the charade, you chucked your poodle, and decided to get out. And now in Malikis hour of need when he needed real help, you Brits did not lift a finger as you wait for that boat home. I believe the expression is POSH.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You TLC have done gone down on record and have made a prediction. And your credibility will flush down the toilet if you are wrong. SIMPLE AS THAT BOTTOM LINE.

Unless my read comprehension has gone completely out; what was his prediction?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And now JOS further muddies the waters with---The truth is that Israel could singelhandedly take on every neighbouring country at once if they wanted to.

And goes on to boast---Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves, Britains never ever ever will be slaves.

Are we in fact talking about the same country that was conquered by the Norman French, the same country that, like Japan, was saved a divine wind, and came just a hair breath
of being conquered by the Spanish. And the same country that went on to build perhaps the largest and most effective colonial empire in world history. Arriving at perhaps its peak during the late Victorian era. Do not get me wrong, that is truly a record to be proud of.

But the 20'th century has not been kind to Great Briton, you folks have truly written the manual on how to blow it and fail in every occupation. Lets maybe start with the Brits creation of Iraq and the bungled British occupation of Iraq that failed some 17 years later.

Lets fast forward to Tony Blair thus sparing you all the other gory failures in the interim. But getting back to Tony Blair, we are talking a fool that bought the GWB line hook line and sinker. And GWB gave you Brits the cush job of securing the South of Iraq with no sectarian violence because it was all Shia. And after all, its hard to have sectarian violence when there is only one sect. But minor detail and triviality, the shia insurgencies rapped up the South of Iraq at incredible speed. And then the British choice was made clear. The Brits could take control and the causalities that came with it or the Shias could let the Brits pretend they were in control when they were not. And take low causalities as a result. We all know you Brits took the latter bargain. And when you Brits got tired of the charade, you chucked your poodle, and decided to get out. And now in Malikis hour of need when he needed real help, you Brits did not lift a finger as you wait for that boat home. I believe the expression is POSH.

I have asked you plenty of times never to take anything i say out of context but quote the entire post, i respected you for respecting that.

In this case, let me respond to you, i was against the Iraq invasion, We got rid of Blair, who is the president of your country?

Now, in the future, you'd might want to take up a counterpoint with someone NOT agreeing with you, if that is too fucking hard for you to get, well i guess i'll just have to ignore you.

I can't do anything about it in Iraq, i'm in Afghanistan, Maliki is the commander and this is his job, i don't feel sorry for him, he's a puppet who will learn the consequences of dealing with the likes of Blair and Bush.

I have had nothing to do with Iraq except that first tour and at the time our job was pointless there, no intelligence worked, we didn't even know where to go. I hate the Iraq war, send the troops to Afghanistan and end this shit.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You TLC have done gone down on record and have made a prediction. And your credibility will flush down the toilet if you are wrong. SIMPLE AS THAT BOTTOM LINE.

Unless my read comprehension has gone completely out; what was his prediction?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you missed it Tab, the TLC prediction is that Maliki has already won and Al Sadr has lost. And if subsequent events show the Maliki falls because he loses political support and Al Sadr remains a viable political player, we will all know TLC is FOS.

Until then it remains somewhat a draw, lots of people killed but nothing changed. The insurgencies still retain their arms, no progress occurred, and while the Iraqi army
was tied up in Basra, six other cities could have melted down with the Iraqi army far away.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

Uhmmmm... you realize most people (the Bush administration included) say Hezbollah won that war right?

No, no rational person would ever say that, not ONE (well the Bush administration isn't exactly filled with rational people, are they?).

Israel pulled back because of the UN, they could have leveled Lebanon without using nukes if they wanted to, they didn't even involve airsupport more than a few choppers that were not even equipped with target bombing equipment.

The truth is that Israel could singelhandedly take on every neighbouring country at once if they wanted to, Hezbollah... well they are just a terrorist organisation that they let go because it wasn't worth it when they hid amongst civilians while firing. That is the general story of Israel, they really get no chance to do anything because everytime they do it involves a shitload of civilian deaths because that is what Hamas and Hezbolla loves, it makes stupid people like you agree with them.

Holy crap! I actually agree (somewhat) with JoS for once.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
On balance, I do owe Eskimospy an apology for using his statements as somewhat of an argument platform. As eskimo spy points out---I was pointing out that his analogy (tlc's) was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive.

And seemingly random is also right in pointing out---I think some folks in this discussion are debating. In other words, the debate is more important than the contents. They will pick mercilessly at inane stuff and frustrate others to death.

And I have to admit that partially applies to me. I try to see my role as a debunker of myths and stupidities. I am trying as best I can to see Iraq honestly and in the state it is in now. And what motivates the various sides. And until we see the situation in a brutally honest manner, there is little hope we can get from where we are now to a better place where we can all call it a "win" without making that brutally honest and unbiased assessment.

Many posts back some one referred to the Joe Biden three state solution for Iraq. My thesis is that a three state solution is unworkable, but we have a situation in which anarchy has resulted in Iraq being de facto already partitioned into thousand of fiefdoms of varying size.

And my take on the entire incident is as follows. Because when you have rival adjacent fiefdoms, the natural progression is that one group will try to take over the other. And the already well entrenched Mahdi army faction was squabbling over who got the lions share of the Iraqi oil being looted in Basra with another well entrenched Shia group(s) backed by other Shia factions. And Malaki came in with the Iraqi army to try to establish "law and order", and in doing so over reached himself because he does not have the power needed and Iraqi army troops do not particularly enjoy killing fellow Iraqis. Rather than allow Basra to be destroyed meaning there will be no oil money to loot, both rival Shia groups called a cease fire without disarming, pretty soon Malki will go back to the green zone with his Shia political support weakened, the whole stunt just resulted in a lot of people being killed, and nothing has fundamentally changed.

In a sense, TLC is right, Iraq can't have a real central government without disarming the insurgencies and establishing central government control, but thats going to take the 500,000 troops Shinseki told us that we needed before day one.
And now that the insurgencies are well dug in, its going to take way way more than the 500,000 troops we do not have.

Since the simple brute force power strategy lacks the enough power, we are going to have to try something smarter to make up for that handicap. Maybe, gasp diplomacy.

Well if you were such a great "debunker of myths and stupidities" you wouldn't get so throughly owned by Datalink7 when he corrects your own (and others in here) myths and stupidities concerning Iraq. Not to mention that thread on Columbia when people who actually live there corrected your little left-leaning, socialist pontifications with actual facts.

You and quite a few others in here have this penchant for rooting for the underdog. That's particularly true when the underdog is battling the US, direcly or by proxy. You guys seem to be in love with the idea of David downing Goliath (i.e. - GW Bush) and often spin mightily to make it seem that it either has happened or will happen. David doesn't always get lucky slinging that stone in every similar situation though. Usually, Goliath will win.

Your latest myth is assuming that in order to establish complete central government control that the Iraq government has to completely wipe out every militia member. That's simply not true. All the Iraqi gov has to do is exactly what they did in Basra - demonstrate that the militias are no match for government troops. They weren't. It wasn't Maliki that called this "truce." Sadr had to back down because his men were getting obliterated. Despite this "fierce resistance" that the MSM crows about he was losing 70+ men a day. Many more were injured, or captured. Sadr knew the numbers game and knew he couldn't sustain those losses, so he retreated. While the spinmeisters in the West may view that retreat as a victory I seriously doubt the majority of Iraqis see it that way. All they see is that Sadr is not nearly as powerful as he claimed to be. His boasts have shown to be idle ones. His bite doesn't match his bark.

Not only that, but now we have what may be some actual proof of Iran's involvement and backing of Sadr. Not a single MSM outlet or journalist has bothered to assess typical Iraqi reaction to that Iranian involvement. Hmmm. I wonder why?

Maybe because it's already common knowledge that Iran is supporting groups in Iraq?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You TLC have done gone down on record and have made a prediction. And your credibility will flush down the toilet if you are wrong. SIMPLE AS THAT BOTTOM LINE.

Unless my read comprehension has gone completely out; what was his prediction?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you missed it Tab, the TLC prediction is that Maliki has already won and Al Sadr has lost. And if subsequent events show the Maliki falls because he loses political support and Al Sadr remains a viable political player, we will all know TLC is FOS.

Until then it remains somewhat a draw, lots of people killed but nothing changed. The insurgencies still retain their arms, no progress occurred, and while the Iraqi army
was tied up in Basra, six other cities could have melted down with the Iraqi army far away.

Al Sadr and Maliki are mates, the US was responsible for putting them BOTH in the government.

The truce has never been broken, except by reports, afaik (and i know more than you do) the shia vs shia problem is just a coantinuance because of some twat who died.

One recommendation, if you don't know anything, SHUT THE FUCK UP about it, and you don't konw anything on the matter.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
On balance, I do owe Eskimospy an apology for using his statements as somewhat of an argument platform. As eskimo spy points out---I was pointing out that his analogy (tlc's) was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive.

And seemingly random is also right in pointing out---I think some folks in this discussion are debating. In other words, the debate is more important than the contents. They will pick mercilessly at inane stuff and frustrate others to death.

And I have to admit that partially applies to me. I try to see my role as a debunker of myths and stupidities. I am trying as best I can to see Iraq honestly and in the state it is in now. And what motivates the various sides. And until we see the situation in a brutally honest manner, there is little hope we can get from where we are now to a better place where we can all call it a "win" without making that brutally honest and unbiased assessment.

Many posts back some one referred to the Joe Biden three state solution for Iraq. My thesis is that a three state solution is unworkable, but we have a situation in which anarchy has resulted in Iraq being de facto already partitioned into thousand of fiefdoms of varying size.

And my take on the entire incident is as follows. Because when you have rival adjacent fiefdoms, the natural progression is that one group will try to take over the other. And the already well entrenched Mahdi army faction was squabbling over who got the lions share of the Iraqi oil being looted in Basra with another well entrenched Shia group(s) backed by other Shia factions. And Malaki came in with the Iraqi army to try to establish "law and order", and in doing so over reached himself because he does not have the power needed and Iraqi army troops do not particularly enjoy killing fellow Iraqis. Rather than allow Basra to be destroyed meaning there will be no oil money to loot, both rival Shia groups called a cease fire without disarming, pretty soon Malki will go back to the green zone with his Shia political support weakened, the whole stunt just resulted in a lot of people being killed, and nothing has fundamentally changed.

In a sense, TLC is right, Iraq can't have a real central government without disarming the insurgencies and establishing central government control, but thats going to take the 500,000 troops Shinseki told us that we needed before day one.
And now that the insurgencies are well dug in, its going to take way way more than the 500,000 troops we do not have.

Since the simple brute force power strategy lacks the enough power, we are going to have to try something smarter to make up for that handicap. Maybe, gasp diplomacy.

Well if you were such a great "debunker of myths and stupidities" you wouldn't get so throughly owned by Datalink7 when he corrects your own (and others in here) myths and stupidities concerning Iraq. Not to mention that thread on Columbia when people who actually live there corrected your little left-leaning, socialist pontifications with actual facts.

You and quite a few others in here have this penchant for rooting for the underdog. That's particularly true when the underdog is battling the US, direcly or by proxy. You guys seem to be in love with the idea of David downing Goliath (i.e. - GW Bush) and often spin mightily to make it seem that it either has happened or will happen. David doesn't always get lucky slinging that stone in every similar situation though. Usually, Goliath will win.

Your latest myth is assuming that in order to establish complete central government control that the Iraq government has to completely wipe out every militia member. That's simply not true. All the Iraqi gov has to do is exactly what they did in Basra - demonstrate that the militias are no match for government troops. They weren't. It wasn't Maliki that called this "truce." Sadr had to back down because his men were getting obliterated. Despite this "fierce resistance" that the MSM crows about he was losing 70+ men a day. Many more were injured, or captured. Sadr knew the numbers game and knew he couldn't sustain those losses, so he retreated. While the spinmeisters in the West may view that retreat as a victory I seriously doubt the majority of Iraqis see it that way. All they see is that Sadr is not nearly as powerful as he claimed to be. His boasts have shown to be idle ones. His bite doesn't match his bark.

Not only that, but now we have what may be some actual proof of Iran's involvement and backing of Sadr. Not a single MSM outlet or journalist has bothered to assess typical Iraqi reaction to that Iranian involvement. Hmmm. I wonder why?

Maybe because it's already common knowledge that Iran is supporting groups in Iraq?

Son, so is Syria and SA, it's been known for more than a decade that they sponsor any terrorism.

What are we doing about it, cutting of their funds, as we are speaking and without it... they have nothing to contribute and sill most probably be killed... no blood on my hands.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
On balance, I do owe Eskimospy an apology for using his statements as somewhat of an argument platform. As eskimo spy points out---I was pointing out that his analogy (tlc's) was wrong and so it was foolish to apply it to the situation in Iraq.

As for your very sensitive and very deep anti war post, spare me. I never said the conflict was a good thing, that both Hezbollah and Israel weren't wrong in what they did, or that this sort of fighting was in any way productive.

And seemingly random is also right in pointing out---I think some folks in this discussion are debating. In other words, the debate is more important than the contents. They will pick mercilessly at inane stuff and frustrate others to death.

And I have to admit that partially applies to me. I try to see my role as a debunker of myths and stupidities. I am trying as best I can to see Iraq honestly and in the state it is in now. And what motivates the various sides. And until we see the situation in a brutally honest manner, there is little hope we can get from where we are now to a better place where we can all call it a "win" without making that brutally honest and unbiased assessment.

Many posts back some one referred to the Joe Biden three state solution for Iraq. My thesis is that a three state solution is unworkable, but we have a situation in which anarchy has resulted in Iraq being de facto already partitioned into thousand of fiefdoms of varying size.

And my take on the entire incident is as follows. Because when you have rival adjacent fiefdoms, the natural progression is that one group will try to take over the other. And the already well entrenched Mahdi army faction was squabbling over who got the lions share of the Iraqi oil being looted in Basra with another well entrenched Shia group(s) backed by other Shia factions. And Malaki came in with the Iraqi army to try to establish "law and order", and in doing so over reached himself because he does not have the power needed and Iraqi army troops do not particularly enjoy killing fellow Iraqis. Rather than allow Basra to be destroyed meaning there will be no oil money to loot, both rival Shia groups called a cease fire without disarming, pretty soon Malki will go back to the green zone with his Shia political support weakened, the whole stunt just resulted in a lot of people being killed, and nothing has fundamentally changed.

In a sense, TLC is right, Iraq can't have a real central government without disarming the insurgencies and establishing central government control, but thats going to take the 500,000 troops Shinseki told us that we needed before day one.
And now that the insurgencies are well dug in, its going to take way way more than the 500,000 troops we do not have.

Since the simple brute force power strategy lacks the enough power, we are going to have to try something smarter to make up for that handicap. Maybe, gasp diplomacy.

Well if you were such a great "debunker of myths and stupidities" you wouldn't get so throughly owned by Datalink7 when he corrects your own (and others in here) myths and stupidities concerning Iraq. Not to mention that thread on Columbia when people who actually live there corrected your little left-leaning, socialist pontifications with actual facts.

You and quite a few others in here have this penchant for rooting for the underdog. That's particularly true when the underdog is battling the US, direcly or by proxy. You guys seem to be in love with the idea of David downing Goliath (i.e. - GW Bush) and often spin mightily to make it seem that it either has happened or will happen. David doesn't always get lucky slinging that stone in every similar situation though. Usually, Goliath will win.

Your latest myth is assuming that in order to establish complete central government control that the Iraq government has to completely wipe out every militia member. That's simply not true. All the Iraqi gov has to do is exactly what they did in Basra - demonstrate that the militias are no match for government troops. They weren't. It wasn't Maliki that called this "truce." Sadr had to back down because his men were getting obliterated. Despite this "fierce resistance" that the MSM crows about he was losing 70+ men a day. Many more were injured, or captured. Sadr knew the numbers game and knew he couldn't sustain those losses, so he retreated. While the spinmeisters in the West may view that retreat as a victory I seriously doubt the majority of Iraqis see it that way. All they see is that Sadr is not nearly as powerful as he claimed to be. His boasts have shown to be idle ones. His bite doesn't match his bark.

Not only that, but now we have what may be some actual proof of Iran's involvement and backing of Sadr. Not a single MSM outlet or journalist has bothered to assess typical Iraqi reaction to that Iranian involvement. Hmmm. I wonder why?

Maybe because it's already common knowledge that Iran is supporting groups in Iraq?

Not really. It's been more like common suspicion, though probably well-placed suspicion, for some time now. Having absolute proof is a different story though.

 

[Lemon law]

Now the JOS position is-------I have asked you plenty of times never to take anything i say out of context but quote the entire post, i respected you for respecting that.

In this case, let me respond to you, i was against the Iraq invasion, We got rid of Blair, who is the president of your country?

Now, in the future, you'd might want to take up a counterpoint with someone NOT agreeing with you, if that is too fucking hard for you to get, well i guess i'll just have to ignore you.

I can't do anything about it in Iraq, i'm in Afghanistan, Maliki is the commander and this is his job, i don't feel sorry for him, he's a puppet who will learn the consequences of dealing with the likes of Blair and Bush.

I have had nothing to do with Iraq except that first tour and at the time our job was pointless there, no intelligence worked, we didn't even know where to go. I hate the Iraq war, send the troops to Afghanistan and end this shit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the charge is that I have somehow quoted you out of context. And because you are against the Iraqi bungled occupation also, you are the only good guy on this thread?

And somehow you come into this thread that is supposed to be only about recent events in Basra and overall recent Iraqi history, you are supposed to be able to get away with asserting the red herrings that Israel can beat the shit out of everyone, you alone are right on Afghanistan, and only you are in context.

When in fact, as far as I am concerned, military power misused by a super power, only backfires on that super power. Now that you mention it, Afghanistan is not exactly going well either.

But to take things out of context again, you really put things in perspective with---I have had nothing to do with Iraq except that first tour and at the time our job was pointless there, no intelligence worked. ( With emphasis on the just three words---no intelligence worked. )

Thats it in a nutshell, you have to have some brains before intelligence can work. Brilliant simply Brilliant and truly profound. And as I recall, your Afghanistan strategy is to kill anyone who disagrees with you which precludes the possibility of finding out what makes the enemy tick or finding any common ground. So you get no meaningful intelligence.

 

[Lemon law]

Now TLC comes up with another smokescreen with---Well if you were such a great "debunker of myths and stupidities" you wouldn't get so throughly owned by Datalink7 when he corrects your own (and others in here) myths and stupidities concerning Iraq. Not to mention that thread on Columbia when people who actually live there corrected your little left-leaning, socialist pontifications with actual facts.

Excuse me, TLC, there is no great disagreement between me and datalink7. I do not root for the Farc, I do not root for Iraqi anarchy, I can see why the taliban had to be removed after 911, but sorry TLC, I do not want to see my safety and tax payer money wasted because over stupid ideologies that never work and are now running amock.
We may share the same goals, but differ on how to get there. Quite frankly, you just can't credibly argue the means you advocate are getting us anywhere but no where fast.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now the JOS position is-------I have asked you plenty of times never to take anything i say out of context but quote the entire post, i respected you for respecting that.

In this case, let me respond to you, i was against the Iraq invasion, We got rid of Blair, who is the president of your country?

Now, in the future, you'd might want to take up a counterpoint with someone NOT agreeing with you, if that is too fucking hard for you to get, well i guess i'll just have to ignore you.

I can't do anything about it in Iraq, i'm in Afghanistan, Maliki is the commander and this is his job, i don't feel sorry for him, he's a puppet who will learn the consequences of dealing with the likes of Blair and Bush.

I have had nothing to do with Iraq except that first tour and at the time our job was pointless there, no intelligence worked, we didn't even know where to go. I hate the Iraq war, send the troops to Afghanistan and end this shit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the charge is that I have somehow quoted you out of context. And because you are against the Iraqi bungled occupation also, you are the only good guy on this thread?

And somehow you come into this thread that is supposed to be only about recent events in Basra and overall recent Iraqi history, you are supposed to be able to get away with asserting the red herrings that Israel can beat the shit out of everyone, you alone are right on Afghanistan, and only you are in context.

When in fact, as far as I am concerned, military power misused by a super power, only backfires on that super power. Now that you mention it, Afghanistan is not exactly going well either.

But to take things out of context again, you really put things in perspective with---I have had nothing to do with Iraq except that first tour and at the time our job was pointless there, no intelligence worked. ( With emphasis on the just three words---no intelligence worked. )

Thats it in a nutshell, you have to have some brains before intelligence can work. Brilliant simply Brilliant and truly profound. And as I recall, your Afghanistan strategy is to kill anyone who disagrees with you which precludes the possibility of finding out what makes the enemy tick or finding any common ground. So you get no meaningful intelligence.

Either quote my entire response or don't mention my name in your posts, how fucking hard is that you superstupid wise and beautiful woman of a man? I have asked you ten times before and you have eventually complied, now we start over from scratch again?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Folks, no personal attacks means no personal attacks...not "personal attacks when I'm feeling really mad" or "well maybe SOME personal attacks".

JOS, we'll see you in 10 days. Since you just got back from your last ban less than a week ago, I know you know the rules about this.

Rainsford
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Lemon law]

My only take JOS is that you are a remarkably thin skinned man to come up with---Either quote my entire response or don't mention my name in your posts, how fucking hard is that you superstupid wise and beautiful woman of a man? I have asked you ten times before and you have eventually complied, now we start over from scratch again?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I could ask the what the fuck is wrong with you question. Your thesis seems to be that because you see that Iraq is stupidity, you are free to wash your hand of the matter when its your country and my country whose ox is being gored in Iraq and Afghanistan. And instead you want to make this into some personal battle between me and you and
you somehow advance your cause by calling me a "superstupid wise and beautiful woman of a man" And after that want to start from scratch again.

Go ahead, JOS, insult me until you are blue in the face, I do not hate you, I believe we share the same goals, but we must all ask the same question, when our cause is just, why do WE fail? Please notice I capitalized the WE. Its not about you, its about all of us. Sure I am willing to start from scratch, any time. But step one is to understand other viewpoints honestly. Given the raw power disparity, "our side" should be winning like a 100 to 2. When we are losing like 70 to 50, and not any catch up progress, maybe its time to be open to some criticism. Even if its only partial and not in full context because all the mistakes can't be addressed in even the Encyclopedia Britannica.

We all share the same human failing and handicaps. And one of them is that we can't change the past. And when we fail and don't like failing, it is time to ask the question of why did we fail? I can't say I am 100% right, but I think I have some insights.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Maybe because it's already common knowledge that Iran is supporting groups in Iraq?

Not really. It's been more like common suspicion, though probably well-placed suspicion, for some time now. Having absolute proof is a different story though.
[/quote]

I believe that it has already been proven well beyond a reasonable doubt that Iran is helping groups in in Iraq. You know about those metal discs that have been destroying metal Humvees? The only place that has the industrial capability to manufacture those is Iran...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I corrected you about the Lebanon conlict where you made a claim about Israel's goal and Hezbollah's goals while ignoring the actual facts of the situation and ignored Hezbollah's goals for initiating the conflict. But I imagine you'll go on your merry way as usual as if you were 100% correct in the matter.

As far as the Winograd report, can you show me where it actually says that Hezbollah won? Can you also show me where I said that "Israel won?" I said that "Hezbollah got their asses kicked," and they did.

I'll be waiting for you to put more words in my mouth...again, or make some screwy pedantic post about how saying this really means that while whining about someone else resorting to semantics.

Oh my god... hahaha. I'm so not doing another argument with you on the definition of some word. First it was if the Bush Doctrine existed, then I remember seeing you flailing around against another group of incredibly patient people about some other word, now it's the definition of victory. After losing the substance, then and only then you retreat into definitions and semantics as a way to attempt to salvage some dignity.

You are way too old to be arguing in this manner. Stop it.

Oh and Lemon Law, no harm no foul. I still love you!

It very clear who's flailing in this thread and it's not me.

It's fun watching you flopping around tho.

FART

You're a 40 year old man arguing like a 12 year old. Enjoy it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Great. 'According to well-placed but un-named officials...' Another spin moment. Despite Sadr's militia being humiliated and Sadr having to back down, somehow this is a loss for Maliki.

Reminds me of the spin after the Israeli/Lebanon conflict. Somehow, getting their ass kicked was a victory for Hezbollah too.

:roll:

Uhmmmm... you realize most people (the Bush administration included) say Hezbollah won that war right?

No, no rational person would ever say that, not ONE (well the Bush administration isn't exactly filled with rational people, are they?).

Israel pulled back because of the UN, they could have leveled Lebanon without using nukes if they wanted to, they didn't even involve airsupport more than a few choppers that were not even equipped with target bombing equipment.

The truth is that Israel could singelhandedly take on every neighbouring country at once if they wanted to, Hezbollah... well they are just a terrorist organisation that they let go because it wasn't worth it when they hid amongst civilians while firing. That is the general story of Israel, they really get no chance to do anything because everytime they do it involves a shitload of civilian deaths because that is what Hamas and Hezbolla loves, it makes stupid people like you agree with them.

FART. A good measure as if you've made a dumb point is if TLC has agreed with you.

Sure Israel could have leveled Lebanon. That was never the question. The question was if they had the political will to endure the casualties that it would have required to do so. They did not. They lost the war. This is obvious to everyone. They didn't "let hezbollah go".

If you are actually a British captain in Afghanistan, then you are one sorely lacking in geopolitical knowledge of the war in which you are fighting. (I for one don't think that someone spending their time fighting would have quite so much time to post at ATPN, but that's just me.) So, say what you want. I've been over to the Persian Gulf several times, and so I'm very comfortable standing up to you. All I see from you is personal insults and specious reasoning.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Lemon law
You TLC have done gone down on record and have made a prediction. And your credibility will flush down the toilet if you are wrong. SIMPLE AS THAT BOTTOM LINE.

Unless my read comprehension has gone completely out; what was his prediction?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you missed it Tab, the TLC prediction is that Maliki has already won and Al Sadr has lost. And if subsequent events show the Maliki falls because he loses political support and Al Sadr remains a viable political player, we will all know TLC is FOS.

Until then it remains somewhat a draw, lots of people killed but nothing changed. The insurgencies still retain their arms, no progress occurred, and while the Iraqi army
was tied up in Basra, six other cities could have melted down with the Iraqi army far away.

Al Sadr and Maliki are mates, the US was responsible for putting them BOTH in the government.

The truce has never been broken, except by reports, afaik (and i know more than you do) the shia vs shia problem is just a coantinuance because of some twat who died.

One recommendation, if you don't know anything, SHUT THE FUCK UP about it, and you don't konw anything on the matter.

I agree the 'truce' has yet to end. And though the US 'empowered' the shia domain in Iraq, al Sadr and Maliki are distinctly different. And as typical, when Chickie engages his mouth with "" Maliki has already won"" without understanding the situation in Iraq and what the future holds it's just FUD.

Maliki 'exists' because of the Da'wah coalition with the Badr Organization and the Sadrists. As a matter of fact, Da'wah sometimes relies heavily on the Sadrists for support.

Da'wah is more a movement consisting of 'outsiders' who were exiled from Iraq. They have no base or real political organization in Iraq - nor do they have a 'militia'. The Iraqi Army is effectively Maliki's militia (along with the occupying forces).

The Badr Organization and the Sadrists are the ""hamas and hezbollah"" of Iraq. I'm not refering to this in 'terror' terms. They have the support of the communities where they provide security, services and political organization.

When it comes to the Shia in Iraq, to be The Man you have to beat The Man. In this case he is Abd al-Aziz Hakim. And his influence in Iraq is closely followed by al Sadr - not Maliki.

WOOOOOOOOO !!!

(thank you Ric Flair)