Who Won Iraq's "Decisive" Battle?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
At least in my opinion, a link posed by TLC that somewhat gets to part of the heart of the matter. And is maybe best summed up with the last of the link---All major political parties are believed to maintain links to armed groups, although none acknowledge it. Some groups, including militias of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party and al-Sadr's chief rival, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, have been integrated into the government security services.

That put them nominally under the government's authority, although they are believed to maintain ties to the political parties and retain their command structures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the big weasel words, at least in my opinion, is nominally under government control.

And now it seems that Maliki has singled out just Al Sadr. When the real problem Maliki must confront is to break the power of all the Iraqi insurgencies. When the natural enemy of all Iraqi insurgencies is the central government as an oil and water never mix problem. As Maliki loses some Shia political support, he has gained some Sunni and Kurdish support. The real joker in the deck may be what international support Maliki can pick up. And the other joker is what happens if Sadr simply deals off the Mahdi army to a supporter yet retains the civilian social service arm that delivers social services to much of Sadr city. All of these questions and more are likely to be put to the test in the coming months.
As the Iraqi civilian government finally starts to become relevant. And who knows, it may happen, starts to tell GWB&co that they are no longer the sole deciders in Iraq. Something that never happened in Vietnam, and as we all know, that one went in the L column.
Bush wasn't running the Vietnam War. Besides that diversion...

No doubt there are military/political alliances in Iraq. That's true of many militaries including our own. But as the link states, the other militias are integrated into the government military. If Sadr had done the same he wouldn't be facing this issue he's facing now. His mistake. The Iraqi political parties wouldn't be so stacked against him if Sadr had popular opinion on his side. It seems that he doesn't.
 

MadRat

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
11,780
120
106
Let's not all forget that Shia are despised by the majority of Muslims. No matter who wins these latest rounds, the Shia will lose in the end game. The Sunnis will regain control of Iraq shortly after any withdrawal.
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
The U.S. has screwed its self with Iraq... its turning out to be more of a vietnam every year that goes by.... We hear its getting better but then in a matter of days it seems like it reverses months of progress. The U.S. has allowed Al Sadr to become such a powerful player... now we are screwed we kill him the country goes jihad and explodes in violence as he is seen as a martyr. Or we continue to do what we are doing and watch him slowly take over the country and grow his miltia and political power with Iran's support. Either way we are screwed.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
What I fail to understand is why Maliki has such a snit going to get Al Sadr. And for that matter, how he is going to get the
Mahdi army to disband. Or even to measure the accomplishment if it happens.

As it is, Al Sadr made the Mahdi army vanish, one day it was there and fighting in Basra, and the next day, all the fighters hung up their uniforms, wore civilian clothes, and quit hanging out in big groups looking menacing. Yet everyone knows its still there, all estimated 60,000 strong, and has a presence in nearly every area of Iraq.

Even if Al Sadr goes before Sistani, and Sistani says thou shalt disband your army, many of these fighters are simply likely to join up with some other insurgent leader. Or Al Sadr can simply deal off the Mahdi thing to someone else, don his politician hat, participate in politics, and even if someone else's Mahdi army is running amok, he can truthfully say, army?, I don't have an army? Even though, and for some mysterious reason, the Mahdi army seems to always seems to take actions hostile to Al Sadr's political foes. And Al Sadr is not running for office, a slate of candidates are, while he is safe in some undisclosed location.

So in that sense, the best Maliki can do is try to assassinate the reputation of Al Sadr, blaming him for all manner of ills, regardless if Al Sadr had anything to do with it or not.

Meanwhile, I can't see Maliki having a plan if Al Sadr wants to sic his estimated 60,000 strong army on Maliki as the smaller Iraqi army gets stretched very thin trying to maintain any kind of order in dozens and dozens of Iraqi cities.

In short, if Maliki is trying force Sadr into having a pissing contest with him, its just very difficult for me to see it as anything but a losing game for Maliki. Yet that seems to be the game Maliki is playing, trying to piss off Al Sadr and force a confrontation Maliki can't win.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: nullzero
The U.S. has screwed its self with Iraq... its turning out to be more of a vietnam every year that goes by.... We hear its getting better but then in a matter of days it seems like it reverses months of progress. The U.S. has allowed Al Sadr to become such a powerful player... now we are screwed we kill him the country goes jihad and explodes in violence as he is seen as a martyr. Or we continue to do what we are doing and watch him slowly take over the country and grow his miltia and political power with Iran's support. Either way we are screwed.
What I find odd is that so many have denied any progress in Iraq whatsoever and claimed that the Surge was ineffective. Now many of those same people are proclaiming that months of progress have been reversed. Amazing how the opinion on past progress has suddenly morphed.

Marginalizing Sadr's militia is progress, yet more progress. If Sadr wants to play a role in Iraq he's now going to have to do it without his jackboots terrorizing the populace and trying to enforce Sadr's fundamentalist religious beliefs via an iron fist. Instead he's going to have to participate purely politically and not merely use politics as a fig leaf of legitimacy while his real power came from legions of gun toting thugs.

If people can't recognize that as progress one has to wonder what they are smoking.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: shira
"definitions."

The discussion was about a common-sense definition of what "lie" means, in the context of years of Bush/Cheney statements (conflating 9/11 with our invasion of Iraq) that any normal person would understand to mean that Saddam/Iraq had some causal connection to 9/11.

We KNOW that Saddam/Iraq had no causal relationship with 9/11, yet Bush/Cheney - even now - keep bringing up 9/11, tell us we invaded Iraq because of 9/11, and tell us that Iraq is the front line in the war of terror.

But you kept claiming that if people understand Bush or Cheney to by implying a causal relationship between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11, that's their problem. You refuse to acknowledge that Bush and Cheney are lying (since they know exactly what the common man understands their words to mean, yet keep using the same rhetoric). Instead, your response is, "I want absolute proof. Show me the hard evidence."

Despite numerous direct questions to establish a reasonable definition of the word "lie"- for example, asking you if it's a lie to make a statement that one KNOWS people will misunderstand to mean something contrary to the truth - you evade, evade, evade.

What it comes down to is that there are common-senses notions of what it means to lie, and Bush/Cheney meet the 95% theshold for that definition. Yet, with that argument staring you in the face, you hold out that last 5% ("Proof! Proof! I want proof!") and claim that Bush and Cheney are being truthful.

An honest person would - at the very least - say "Bush and Cheney are very likely lying."

But you play your games of evasion. So why should anyone engage in a dialog with you when you so obviously have no respect for intellectual honesty?
You don't even know the thread we're discussing, so stay out of this.
For sure. I wouldn't want anyone to confuse your intellectual slime in the "Cheney lied" thread with your intellectual slime in Eskimospy's thread. Or any of your other intellectual slime threads.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Let's see. 3 posts solely comprised of OT rants and personal attacks and not a single point on the topic of this thread.

Care to pontificate some more about intellect, shira?
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's see. 3 posts solely comprised of OT rants and personal attacks and not a single point on the topic of this thread.

Care to pontificate some more about intellect, shira?
Glad to oblige:

You:

It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Eskimospy: "This is a willful misrepresentation."

You:

That's amusing coming from a guy that unabashedly and shamefully misrepresents my comments in this forum to purposefully mold them into something I didn't say in the first place so he can argue those straw men. Then when asked to show me where I said what he claimed, he conveniently disappears into a puff of smoke and vapors.
That raised the issue of WHY we avoid dealing with you, which Eskimospy responded to and you denied.

I respond with a to-the-point example of your intellectual dishonesty, involving definitons. Your response: "Go away."

What do you say to someone who has a long history of simply evading inconveniently true posts? What do you say to someone who doesn't answer direct, clear questions?

I know: "Goodbye."

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Let's see. 3 posts solely comprised of OT rants and personal attacks and not a single point on the topic of this thread.

Care to pontificate some more about intellect, shira?
Glad to oblige:

You:

It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.
Eskimospy: "This is a willful misrepresentation."

You:

That's amusing coming from a guy that unabashedly and shamefully misrepresents my comments in this forum to purposefully mold them into something I didn't say in the first place so he can argue those straw men. Then when asked to show me where I said what he claimed, he conveniently disappears into a puff of smoke and vapors.
That raised the issue of WHY we avoid dealing with you, which Eskimospy responded to and you denied.

I respond with a to-the-point example of your intellectual dishonesty, involving definitons. Your response: "Go away."

What do you say to someone who has a long history of simply evading inconveniently true posts? What do you say to someone who doesn't answer direct, clear questions?

I know: "Goodbye."
I see. You avoid dealing with me yet you just couldn't help yourself by coming in here and flinging poo, eh?

Good job on that avoidance. Very well done, ol' chap.

/slaps shira on the back

Seems it's the same ol, same ol, as usual. The medicine you guys just LOVE to dish out doesn't taste nearly as sweet when you have to swallow it yourself. You guys enjoy derision, debasement, misrepresentation, rhetoric, hyperbole, and character assassination of your ideological opposition but when it comes back at you you start squealing like stuck pigs. Typical hypocrisy.

Oink, oink, oink.

You guys avoid me because I can chew you up and spit you out. You absolutely cannot tolerate that someone can come in here and consistently counter the BS and spewage that gets flung about. It drives you batshit insane. That fact is easily recognizable by your reactions to anyone who dare not goosestep down your talking point path. The response is an attack by the rabid forum dogs for daring to differ.

But, hey. Free speech and all is so important to you guys. An exchange of ideas and "truth" is the goal...just as long as it's your ideas and truth.

People like you are a demonstration of why the left has lost so much of its power today. Many can't tolerate your unhinged rants, fuck-spun truths, and cheapshot tactics. I don't care myself. Your trash rolls like water off my back. And I'll continue to stay my course and espouse my own opinion no matter what kind of nasty low-road you are determined to traverse, pal.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,977
30,685
136
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I see. You avoid dealing with me yet you just couldn't help yourself by coming in here and flinging poo, eh?

Good job on that avoidance. Very well done, ol' chap.

/slaps shira on the back

Seems it's the same ol, same ol, as usual. The medicine you guys just LOVE to dish out doesn't taste nearly as sweet when you have to swallow it yourself. You guys enjoy derision, debasement, misrepresentation, rhetoric, hyperbole, and character assassination of your ideological opposition but when it comes back at you you start squealing like stuck pigs. Typical hypocrisy.

Oink, oink, oink.

You guys avoid me because I can chew you up and spit you out. You absolutely cannot tolerate that someone can come in here and consistently counter the BS and spewage that gets flung about. It drives you batshit insane. That fact is easily recognizable by your reactions to anyone who dare not goosestep down your talking point path. The response is an attack by the rabid forum dogs for daring to differ.

But, hey. Free speech and all is so important to you guys. An exchange of ideas and "truth" is the goal...just as long as it's your ideas and truth.

People like you are a demonstration of why the left has lost so much of its power today. Many can't tolerate your unhinged rants, fuck-spun truths, and cheapshot tactics. I don't care myself. Your trash rolls like water off my back. And I'll continue to stay my course and espouse my own opinion no matter what kind of nasty low-road you are determined to traverse, pal.
This post is awesome. I can't remember the last time I saw a parent give such a childish rant.

What a world you must live in. If you honestly think you keep winning these discussions you're having on here against us, I really don't know what to tell you. You realize that when people give up trying to teach you in frustration that doesn't mean you won right?

EDIT: Wait, none of that matters. You're missing the point. We don't avoid you because of your Awesome Debating Skills, we avoid you because you argue like a child.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I see. You avoid dealing with me yet you just couldn't help yourself by coming in here and flinging poo, eh?

Good job on that avoidance. Very well done, ol' chap.

/slaps shira on the back

Seems it's the same ol, same ol, as usual. The medicine you guys just LOVE to dish out doesn't taste nearly as sweet when you have to swallow it yourself. You guys enjoy derision, debasement, misrepresentation, rhetoric, hyperbole, and character assassination of your ideological opposition but when it comes back at you you start squealing like stuck pigs. Typical hypocrisy.

Oink, oink, oink.

You guys avoid me because I can chew you up and spit you out. You absolutely cannot tolerate that someone can come in here and consistently counter the BS and spewage that gets flung about. It drives you batshit insane. That fact is easily recognizable by your reactions to anyone who dare not goosestep down your talking point path. The response is an attack by the rabid forum dogs for daring to differ.

But, hey. Free speech and all is so important to you guys. An exchange of ideas and "truth" is the goal...just as long as it's your ideas and truth.

People like you are a demonstration of why the left has lost so much of its power today. Many can't tolerate your unhinged rants, fuck-spun truths, and cheapshot tactics. I don't care myself. Your trash rolls like water off my back. And I'll continue to stay my course and espouse my own opinion no matter what kind of nasty low-road you are determined to traverse, pal.
This post is awesome. I can't remember the last time I saw a parent give such a childish rant.

What a world you must live in. If you honestly think you keep winning these discussions you're having on here against us, I really don't know what to tell you. You realize that when people give up trying to teach you in frustration that doesn't mean you won right?

EDIT: Wait, none of that matters. You're missing the point. We don't avoid you because of your Awesome Debating Skills, we avoid you because you argue like a child.
I see that you failed to recognize yourself in my post, including failing to recognize the delicious irony of your "child" accusation. But what's to be expected of someone who replies on occassion with "FART?"

Note that, once again, you failed at avoiding me as well.

Good job. :thumbsup:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Aside from all this bickering, the point IMO is what the heck is going on over there?

Initial MSM reports that Maliki moved prematurely and without informing US commanders. Now I'm hearing it wasn't premature, it was planned and we were informed and encouraged the action. Complete opposites.

Initial MSM reports Iran brokered the cease-fire. Now I hear that isn't true.

Initial MSM reports a win for al Sadr. Now it looks like he's been maneuvered into a spot between a "rock and a hard place" - choose politics or your militia.

Looks like Maliki may be gaining political strength. Again, the opposite of what was initially reported.

I'm curious to see the results of Patraeus's and Crocker's report. BTW: Biden's alleged efforts to keep "politics" out of it looks to have been ineffectual based on what little I saw of the proceedings.

This looks to be like a chess game in progress. I'm inclined to disregard such initial MSM analysis and wait to see how things play out before jumping to conclusions.

Fern
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Fern
Aside form al this bickering, the point IMO is what the heck is going on over there?

Initial MSM reports that Maliki moved prematurely and without informing US commanders. Now I'm hearing it wasn't premature, it was planned and we were informed and encouraged the action. Complete opposites.

Initial MSM reports Iran brokered the cease-fire. Now I hear that isn't true.

Initial MSM reports a win for al Sadr. Now it looks like he's been manuevured into a spot between a "rock and a hard place" - choose politics or your militia.

Looks like Maliki may be gaining political strength. Again, the opposite of what was initially reported.

I'm curious to see the results of Patraeus's and Crocker's report. BTW: Biden's alleged efforts to keep "politics" out of it look to have been ineffectual based on what little I saw of the procedings.

This looks to be like a chess game in progress. I'm inclined to disregard such initial MSM analysis and wait to see how things play out before jumping to conclusions.

Fern
Odd how the same MSM that was quick to fluff Sadr and malign Maliki is now slow on reporting recent events.

Here's all CNN has to say:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/...aq.soldiers/index.html

The Sadrists say any effort to bar them from political participation would be unconstitutional -- and that any decision to disband the Mehdi Army is not the government's to make.

Al-Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi said al-Sadr has consulted with Iraq's Shiite clerical leadership "and they refused that." He did not provide details of the talks.
Looks like Sadr has "postponed" his million man march as well. No doubt it will be claimed that the government was trying to prevent people from participating but more likely Sadr knows the worm is turning and it's not turning in his favor, either in the political arena or the arena of Iraqi public opinion.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Link? I've tried to find international sources that support your claims and have found nothing. I guess we're kicking ass in the same way we never lost a military engagement in Vietnam...

You're like a deranged old man who insists the earth is flat.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,203
2,322
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Patraeus in front of Congress today...

"He said an Iraqi operation earlier this month to tackle Shi'ite militias in the southern city of Basra, which President George W. Bush had called a "defining moment" for Iraq, was a disappointment and not adequately planned or prepared."

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0717902120080408
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Patraeus in front of Congress today...

"He said an Iraqi operation earlier this month to tackle Shi'ite militias in the southern city of Basra, which President George W. Bush had called a "defining moment" for Iraq, was a disappointment and not adequately planned or prepared."

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0717902120080408
Petraeus = defeatist!

I honestly am worried about TLC now. I thought him reading unreleased books was a lie, but his mental health is questionable...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Patraeus in front of Congress today...

"He said an Iraqi operation earlier this month to tackle Shi'ite militias in the southern city of Basra, which President George W. Bush had called a "defining moment" for Iraq, was a disappointment and not adequately planned or prepared."

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0717902120080408
He also said this in his opening speech:

"We will, of course, conduct careful after-action reviews with our Iraqi partners in the wake of recent operations, as there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases, and some of our assessments may be downgraded as a result.


Nonetheless, the performance of many units was solid, especially once they get their footing and gained a degree of confluence. And certain Iraqi elements proved quite capable."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Patraeus in front of Congress today...

"He said an Iraqi operation earlier this month to tackle Shi'ite militias in the southern city of Basra, which President George W. Bush had called a "defining moment" for Iraq, was a disappointment and not adequately planned or prepared."

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0717902120080408
Petraeus = defeatist!

I honestly am worried about TLC now. I thought him reading unreleased books was a lie, but his mental health is questionable...
Stop your incessant trolling.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Patraeus in front of Congress today...

"He said an Iraqi operation earlier this month to tackle Shi'ite militias in the southern city of Basra, which President George W. Bush had called a "defining moment" for Iraq, was a disappointment and not adequately planned or prepared."

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0717902120080408
Petraeus = defeatist!

I honestly am worried about TLC now. I thought him reading unreleased books was a lie, but his mental health is questionable...
He's what the Chicken calls an Anti Victorian.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The TLC positions seems to be---Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?

And quite frankly TLC I really really really hope you end up being right.

But what has me riled up is the possibility and maybe the probability that you will be proven wrong wrong by events again.

But that has been the basic story of the entire GWB occupation of Iraq, over exuberances and over optimism resulting in disastrous underestimations of the consequences of mistakes. From a war swiftly over and 50 billion tops, things have gone nothing but wrong and downhill since. And now things are on the verge of a possible civil war, and all you can see is the flowers and candy you were promised if we stayed the course.

What does it take to get you riled up TLC? Alfred E. Newman can't hold a candle to you. Would a possible large mid-east war and a world wide depression rile you up? Or do you insist on a US city getting nuked or a large US chemical plant being blown up which could amount to about the same thing? Or maybe we will get lucky and we will merely collapse our own economy first?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: alien42
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TLC is nuttier than squirrel shit :)

What is it about the truth that gets you so riled up? I was listening to Claire McCaskil deposing Petraeus and she brought up a quote from the Washington Post. One of those Sons of IRaq was threatening to start attacking americans because he wasnt' being paid on time.

Calm down, cut your losses, and move on with your life.
What losses? What truth? Sadr got his ass kicked and is still getting it kicked, as I stated from the very beginning and was poo-poo'd for doing so. Gee, "my" version was so different from the MSM, yet we find out subsequently that "my" version is the correct one. I even predicted the potential for Maliki's move to help unify Iraqi political parties and create some trust around Maliki, and that's precisely what happened. All while facing the tirades, jeers, and naysayers assuring everyone that Sadr was coming out on top and what a major mistake it was for Maliki and that TLC didn't have the first clue about Iraq.

Considering the outcome I don't have anything to be riled up about whatsoever. You?
Patraeus in front of Congress today...

"He said an Iraqi operation earlier this month to tackle Shi'ite militias in the southern city of Basra, which President George W. Bush had called a "defining moment" for Iraq, was a disappointment and not adequately planned or prepared."

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0717902120080408
Petraeus = defeatist!

I honestly am worried about TLC now. I thought him reading unreleased books was a lie, but his mental health is questionable...
He's what the Chicken calls an Anti Victorian.
He's what Chicken calls "cautious."

I am looking forward to a full transcript though so I can see what he specifically said about the Basra operation in its entirety, instead of what Reuters claims he said by taking small snippets of his comments. While the small snippet approach may be a filling truth for some, I've never found it particularly appetizing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY