this thread is fucking pathetic

10/29/2007 2:11:52 AM

^ Well, if nothing else, this thread gives some indication of how far we've come in Iraq since this thread's author made his initial post:

Quote :

"Up to this point, April is shaping up to be the deadliest since the fall of Baghdad, with an average of almost 5 friendly deaths a day. What gives?"

Blind Hate

10/29/2007 2:44:07 AM

Quote :

"For the totally fucking ill-informed here, Congress matters concerning the war in Iraq and the "surge" because they control the purse strings, and many congressional Democrats are invested in defeat in Iraq. "

And yet, congress continues to give the President what he asks for. So where is the disconnect?

I agree that the Democrats are politically invested in defeat, but I think most of them arrived at their position after initially caving to the political juggernaut that was the go-to-war movement and it is their shame that they couldn't summon the political backbone to stand up to it.

10/29/2007 9:45:32 AM

^ That's good--I'll use that.

Quote :

"I agree that the Democrats are politically invested in defeat, but I think most of them arrived at their position after initially caving to the political juggernaut that was the go-to-war movement and it is their shame that they couldn't summon the political backbone to stand up to it."

10/29/2007 11:05:08 AM

politically invested in withdrawal/defeat =/= wanting defeat

I think this is the key point hooksaw fails to comprehend.

Look, don't think any of my positions imply I support the Democrats. I don't. None of them have shown the spine to stick to their guns regarding a withdrawal. The few that have are being overshadowed or ignored, if they even exist. Withdraw immediately, withdraw in 6 months, a year, 2 years, by 2013, oh hell we can't commit to anything right now...

All I want is something I can't have... and that's the GOD DAMN TRUTH. How long, realistically, is it going to take to stabilize Iraq? Seriously. I'm not unpatriotic for wanting us out of there. I just want some kind of estimate so I know what to expect. Americans are fed up because we keep getting spoonfed the same bullshit statistics by both parties either supporting staying or withdrawing.

If we stay we MIGHT stabilize Iraq sometime in the near future. If we leave we MIGHT cause a huge bloodbath, and we MIGHT embolden our enemies (a favorite among conservative hacks). However, if we stay we DEFINITELY will continue to give credence to the terrorists, who claim the US is an invader and is once again meddling in their backyard. We will also DEFINITELY spend a shitload of money and undermine our currency and economic strength.

So by all means assume that we have to stay, but in my view Iraq is little more than a financial sinkhole created by the neo-cons and left open by the GOP which for political reasons cannot admit their role in perhaps the most extraordinary political, diplomatic, and intelligence failure in our nations' brief history...

... and honestly, the odds of us ever reconciling in a way that justifies our sacrifices in Iraq are nigh on astronomical. No matter what, any victory achieved in Iraq will indeed be a hollow one

10/29/2007 11:21:25 AM

^ I actually do understand your points--but you're splitting some mighty fine hairs here:

Quote :

"politically invested in withdrawal/defeat =/= wanting defeat"

You sure about that?

10/29/2007 11:26:03 AM

does wanting to get out of your car because its on fire and about to explode mean you want it to burn up and explode?

10/29/2007 12:03:03 PM

^ WTF?!

So, some of you here are admitting that the Democrats are invested in defeat--and you're okay with that shameful fact--but you get upset if I dare to indicate that some Democrats might actually want defeat? Is that your fucking argument? Are you fucking stupid?

JESUS H. CHRIST!

10/29/2007 12:12:21 PM

^ Now you're beginning to piss me off... ok that's not true.... you've just pissed me off to the point that I'm not inclined to be civil

Say I'm running for mayor. Say that I criticize the incumbant for not preparing enough for the current drought conditions (i.e. expanding reservoirs, creating contingency plans, coordinating with other cities/towns, etc.). I am now "politically invested" in the claim that we're underprepared for the drought. Now, say I did my homework. I have emails warning about the drought that were ignored. I have weather experts that predicted the drought months in advance. I have requests for new/more reservoirs to meet increased water demands. Basically, I have legitimate reasons to claim the incumbant was deliberately negligent....

...and then it unexpectedly rains constantly for 3 straight weeks... thus averting disaster.

Now, this would be a problem for me wouldn't it? Now that it rained, odds are people are going to ignore my previously legitimate reasons for criticizing my opponent. This of course will translate into fewer votes at the polls. So, the rain might actually be "a problem" for my campaign, right? Right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight????

OMG I MUST HAVE WANTED US NOT TO HAVE RAIN!!!! I MUST HAVE WANTED US ALL TO SUFFER SO I COULD GET ELECTED B/C I ONLY CARE ABOUT ME AND MY POLITICAL FUTURE AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT I WAS FUCKING RIGHT THAT MY OPPONENT WAS AN INCOMPEENT FUCK WHO SHOULDN'T HAVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY REGARDING WHO CUTS HIS FUCKING HAIR!!!!

Now, do you get the fucking point, or do I need a bigger freaking crayon???

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 1:13 PM. Reason : sfd]

10/29/2007 1:10:52 PM

^

Quote :

"I agree that the Democrats are politically invested in defeat, but I think most of them arrived at their position after initially caving to the political juggernaut that was the go-to-war movement and it is their shame that they couldn't summon the political backbone to stand up to it."

Like I give a shit whether you're "pissed off" or "not inclined to be civil"--blow it out your ass.

10/29/2007 1:36:43 PM

address the points he made.

not the :grr: face.

10/29/2007 2:48:32 PM

^ Later.

[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

10/29/2007 3:00:13 PM

Quote :

" Like I give a shit whether you're "pissed off" or "not inclined to be civil"--blow it out your ass."

Nice job quoting JCASHFAN and then insulting me. Oooh, you can't take my mad face? Is that what makes you quote the wrong fucking person?



[Edited on October 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2007 4:44:41 PM

U.S. Hands Over Shiite Muslim Karbala to Iraqi Forces

Quote :

"Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Karbala province, scene of some of the worst sectarian attacks since the fall of Saddam Hussein, was handed over to Iraqi forces after the U.S. judged them ready to take responsibility for security in the Shiite Muslim area. Karbala, southwest of Baghdad, is the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces to be transferred, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus, the top U.S. officials in Iraq, said in a joint statement announcing today's handover."

Quote :

"[Prime Minister Nuri] Al-Maliki, at today's handover ceremony in Karbala, said Iraq's military leaders were too slow in rebuilding the country's security forces, Agence France-Presse reported. 'We demand that the military and police leadership make more efforts to reconstruct and rebuild the security forces in order to take over control of the rest of the provinces,' AFP cited al-Maliki as saying. The first province transferred to Iraqi security control was Muthanna in July 2006, followed by Dhi Qar, Najaf and Maysan. In May, Iraqi forces took over Arbil, Sulaymaniyah and Dahuk provinces."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a_Jp_FcZxsqw&refer=europe

10/31/2007 1:12:31 AM

^ You have to actually tell us what your bonked-out opinion is. We're not smart enough to decipher it from some random news article.

10/31/2007 1:18:49 AM

^ Do you recognize emoticons, troll?

And here's another one:

10/31/2007 1:23:44 AM

Quote :

"Do you recognize emoticons, troll?"

No, I prefer thoughts and ideas to some piddly little shit that 14 year old girls use.

10/31/2007 1:34:56 AM

lol

10/31/2007 1:36:28 AM

^^

^ You, too.

10/31/2007 1:57:16 AM

So were you a Backstreet Boys fan or an NSYNC fan?

10/31/2007 2:08:53 AM

^

10/31/2007 2:10:45 AM

^ i see what you're trying to do there, but I think it might be backfiring.

for instance, i took my kid to the toy store this past weekend, and saw some of those dolls in boxes.

and i thought:

troll doll . . . . hooksaw.




subconscious image association is a powerful thing.






[Edited on October 31, 2007 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ]

10/31/2007 2:05:27 PM

Shit where have I seen this before...

1) Hooksaw claims Dems want defeat in Iraq
2) Erios disputes claim as bullshit, and explains why
3) Hooksaw calls explanation bullshit (no reason)
4) Erios explains it again in crayon
5) Hooksaw changes the subject to:

Quote :

" U.S. Hands Over Shiite Muslim Karbala to Iraqi Forces "

Same formula of course as the GOP. This is why the GOP never loses an argument. Got a problem issue? Ignore it, call it bullshit, call it partisan hackery, and if necessary say "Hey look over there" and run

11/1/2007 12:29:44 PM

Quote :

"Karbala province, scene of some of the worst sectarian attacks since the fall of Saddam Hussein, was handed over to Iraqi forces after the U.S. judged them ready to take responsibility for security in the Shiite Muslim area."

Things are getting better in Iraq--much to the dismay of those that are invested in defeat. One would think this to be readily apparent from the article posted.

There is a serious inability to take meaning from context that is routinely on display here. Or perhaps it's simply trolling--one never knows for sure.

11/1/2007 2:29:35 PM

^ So you're conceeding that liberals are politically invested in withdrawal, not that liberals want to fail?

Whether Iraq is improving is one issue. Claiming liberals want defeat is another. You got pwnt and changed the subject. THAT is why you got pissed on

11/1/2007 4:55:38 PM

^ I believe that many liberals are invested in defeat and they want "Bush's war" to fail--the two are not mutually exclusive. Withdrawal would be a key part of failure.

And liberals just don't like good news from Iraq:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tw8ES7E2-D4

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2007 5:42:29 PM

Again, I'm fucking dumbfounded that you're backing this monumental claim of yours with a 16 second long clip. Hot damn if that's not some solid evidence. Surely that trumps my long post explaining precisely why your conclusion truly is that stupid

P.S. This is another one example of you blatantly ignoring a refutation of your argument, and insetad just say the same shit again. ::Newsflash:: It's still shit and it's still WRONG

[Edited on November 1, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason : e]

11/1/2007 9:51:06 PM

Haha.

That's a fantastic editing job on that youtube clip.

Very subtle.

11/1/2007 10:06:45 PM

Militant Group Is Out of Baghdad, U.S. Says

Quote :

"BAGHDAD, Nov. 7 — American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned. Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of United States forces in Baghdad, also said that American troops had yet to clear some 13 percent of the city, including Sadr City and several other areas controlled by Shiite militias. But, he said, 'there’s just no question' that violence had declined since a spike in June. 'Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak,' and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said. General Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, the disruption of financing for insurgents, and, most significant, Iraqis' rejection of 'the rule of the gun.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?ref=us

11/8/2007 3:18:35 PM

Fighting a war on terror is kinda like the war on drugs. Neither is a winnable situation unless oppressive force is used (ie carpet bombing areas harboring terrorists, or in the drug war VERY SEVERE punishments for even the smallest drug infraction) or an out of the box strategy is used to undermine the root cause of the antagonist (ie legalizing drugs to undermine the criminal orgainizations that push the black market)

11/8/2007 4:21:54 PM

^ WTF are you babbling about? The U.S. military doesn't do "carpet bombing." Do some fucking research.

PS: Winning the War on Terror is one thing. Winning Iraq one city and one province at a time is something else entirely--something doable. And now we've run al Qaeda out of Baghdad and other areas of Iraq--the 'surge' is working and America and Iraq are winning.


[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 4:45:24 PM

You can't win a war on terror because war is a tactic. You can kill the people attempting it today, but then there will be people who will be trying tomorrow. And the next day. And a hundred years from now. This whole notion that you can "win" a war on terror is misguided and uninformed. Its nothing but a fleecing of the American public to fuel the military industrial complex and ensure a corporate plutocracy.

11/8/2007 4:56:42 PM

I WILL COMPLAIN UNTIL THERE IS 100% WORLD PEACE

THEN EVEN THOUGH THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, I WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE

THAT WILL SHOW THAT I CARE MORE THAN YOU, AND THEREFORE I'M MORE IMPORTANT AND BETTER THAN YOU

11/8/2007 4:58:59 PM

LARGE

CAPITAL

LETTERS

11/8/2007 5:03:18 PM

yeah its supposed to indicate sarcasm

11/8/2007 5:03:58 PM

^^^^ You guys need to pull it back a lot. This was the point:

Quote :

"American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood of Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."

The focus of this thread is Iraq and whether the 'surge' is working: the answer is yes, it is. Stick with this please.

BTW, as an aside, WTF is up with NYT's use of "Mesopotamia"?

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 5:04:27 PM

^ It's refering to the Mesopotamian peninsula, or the collection of Middle Eastern countries in that area. Easier to say I imagine.

Quote :

"I WILL COMPLAIN UNTIL THERE IS 100% WORLD PEACE"

I sense anger in you, young padawan. Let go of your hate or you will fall victim to the ultra right wing... I mean dark side

Quote :

"The focus of this thread is Iraq and whether the 'surge' is working: the answer is yes, it is. Stick with this please. "

Are the violence-related statistics down? Yes, although how much of course depends on how you interpret them. I'm happy enough to hear any good news coming out of Iraq honestly. I'd like to hope our military could make some progress even with the poor leadership from the commander-in-chief. However, there is a very good reason no amount of good news and/or success from "the surge" will convince some of us that it is "working." I myself am in this camp.

Assumption - Military action in Iraq is the best/only way to stop terrorism and stabalize the country.

I categorically reject this premise, and if you do, then the "surge" cannot possibly "succeed." It can at best eventually find peace temporarily, or perhaps by accident. Why? The violence in Iraq is primarily a product of religious diversity and a disfunctional government. It is only partially due to terrorists, more specifically Al Qaida. Al Qaida is effectively lighting matches on dry kindling. Even without their presence the country is a mess.

I believe the key to stability in Iraq is by handing control of Iraq to its people. They may not be ready, but then again the US wasn't ready for a democracy in 1783. It succeeded only through the determined efforts of countless individuals fighting for their country, both in arms and in words. At the end of the day, the people had to figure things out for themselves. That is what I believe must be done in Iraq. They aren't ready, but it's their country. They need to take responsibility for it.

Now, four years later, it may well be that this flawed strategy implemented by the Bush Adminstration will ultimately result in some semblance of stability. It will not, in my humble opinion, be the result of either great political leadership or this "surge." It will however be due to the very dedicated and courageous efforts by our military, in whom I have the upmost respect.

In short, any success in Iraq achieved "post-surge" will have little real value from my perspective.

To me, success in Iraq addresses the root of the problem, not just the symptoms. The bottom line is that US involvement in the Middle East has creating "blowback," as eloquently described by Ron Paul. The US has done the following:

1) Given weapons to Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan

Quote :

"The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan galvanized bin Laden. He supported the Afghan resistance, which became a jihad, or holy war. Ironically, the U.S. became a major supporter of the Afghan resistance, or mujahideen, working with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to set up Islamic schools in Pakistan for Afghan refugees. These schools later evolved into virtual training centers for Islamic radicals."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

2) Given weapons to Saddam Hussein to fight Iran

Quote :

"Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. "

3) Fought for Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War, which was "Plan A." Plan B was to fight Saddam Hussein off on their own, a plan which Osama Bin Laden was prepared to assist with.

Quote :

"CNN) -- In winning the Persian Gulf War, the United States also made itself a resourceful and elusive enemy in the form of accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. The son of a Saudi Arabian businessman, bin Laden has called for a Muslim jihad, or holy war, against the United States. He has encouraged Muslims to kill all the Americans -- civilian or military -- they can. His rage stems from the decision by Saudi Arabia to allow the United States to use the country as a staging area for attacks on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and Iraq. After the victory, the U.S. military presence became permanent. To fundamentalists like bin Laden, the U.S. presence is anathema because Saudi Arabia is home to "the two most holy places" in Islam -- Mecca and Medina. Mecca is the birthplace of Mohammed and the location of the Great Mosque of Mecca, considered by Muslims to be the most sacred spot on Earth. "

We don't want to believe that the US did anything to invite the attacks on 9/11. We don't want to believe that our mere presence in Iraq could be considered a justification for jihad. We want to believe all the terrorists are just some mindless, irrationally, blood-thirsty degenerates who deserve death as fast as our bullets can reach them. Broadly speaking, it is entirely appropriate to accept all of this as true.

We cannot ignore however that our actions, even if well-intentioned, have consequences. We cannot set foot on the holy land of a very... assertive religion and expect everyone to be OK with it. You can't continually back whichever side is going to secure your oil supply without making enemies. In reality, even the right decision can have bad consequences.

This does not absolve you of the blame for those consequences either...

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 6:20 PM. Reason : sadf]

11/8/2007 5:54:59 PM

Quote :

"The focus of this thread is Iraq and whether the 'surge' is working: the answer is yes, it is. Stick with this please."

Has it reduced violence in Baghdad? Somewhat. Has it come closer to healing sectarian divisions and ending this war? No. Thus its a failure. It depends on what your measure of success is.

11/8/2007 6:01:23 PM

Forgot the links to #2 and #3

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/legacy/bin.laden/index.html

11/8/2007 6:25:43 PM

Quote :

"General Fil attributed the decline [in violence] to ... a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr"

thats great and all, but lets see... this is the guy that's led how many revolts against the coalition, stood against the Iraqi National Congress, accused of ordering assassinations of high level Sunni leaders, and has been the target of arrest by US led forces how many times??

I'm glad we can depend on his cease-fire orders to help keep stability.

11/9/2007 12:31:36 AM

Terrorists are 'running out of people to kill,' says Obey

Quote :

"If violence is decreasing in Iraq, it may be because insurgents 'are running out of people to kill,' House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Monday. 'There are fewer targets of opportunity,' Obey said in a speech to the National Press Club."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/terrorists-are-running-out-of-people-to-kill-says-obey-2007-11-06.html

What an idiot.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 12:14:46 PM

Quote :

"In his speech Monday, he stuck by his pledge not to approve any more money for the war until President Bush changes course on Iraq. He also offered a spirited defense of a new surtax to pay for the Iraq war, admitting that he knew it wouldn’t pass when he offered his support for the plan. But he said it highlighted the fact that Bush has loaded the cost of the war onto the national debt while pushing tax cuts tilted to the wealthy. The surtax plan, which is backed by Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and James McGovern (D-Mass.), would raise $150 billion a year for the war. “That may not be a popular thing t"

Sounds like a smart guy to me.

11/9/2007 12:18:58 PM

Quote :

"We don't want to believe that the US did anything to invite the attacks on 9/11. We don't want to believe that our mere presence in Iraq could be considered a justification for jihad. We want to believe all the terrorists are just some mindless, irrationally, blood-thirsty degenerates who deserve death as fast as our bullets can reach them. Broadly speaking, it is entirely appropriate to accept all of this as true."

Say it isn't so.....

I always thought the terrorist hated us b.c they hate our freedom, do not like democracy, and are jealous of our Tivo, pop icons (i.e Brittany spears, JT, beyonce), and ipods.

11/9/2007 12:24:24 PM

^ Yeah, what did Bill Clinton do to make the Islamofascists attack us?

11/9/2007 12:27:36 PM

Quote :

"We don't want to believe that the US did anything to invite the attacks on 9/11. We don't want to believe that our mere presence in Iraq could be considered a justification for jihad"

So I guess I can blow up any towelhead I see walking down my street...I mean, their "mere presence" in the United States is justification enough for my own type of jihad, right? I mean clearly the people who worked in the trade towers to provide for their families "invited" the 9/11 attacks...so I figure any Arab on US soil is justification enough for me to kill him

Doesn't sound as good when you look at it from the other side does it

11/9/2007 12:28:27 PM

Since when does "invite" equal "justify?"


And your "man walking down the street" scenario isn't quite analogous to occupying a country with a foreign army.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 12:32:35 PM

Invite doesn't equal justify but why is that relevant? Erios' comments still implied that we brought it on ourselves...kind of like a rape victim brings it on herself?

Boone what entire army occupied Iraq that caused the 9/11 attacks?

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 12:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 12:33:26 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't but why is that relevant?"

Hahaha, still sandy over that?

Quote :

"Erios' comments still implied that we brought it on ourselves...kind of like a rape victim brings it on herself?"

You're still confusing causation and justification.

Quote :

"Boone what entire army occupied Iraq that caused the 9/11 attacks?"

I was commenting on "We don't want to believe that our mere presence in Iraq could be considered a justification for jihad"

Present day jihad, not 9/11.

Way to be on the ball.

11/9/2007 12:39:30 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't but why is that relevant? Erios' comments still implied that we brought it on ourselves...kind of like a rape victim brings it on herself?"

For a rape victim to be raped, her attacker has to be in the vicinity where she is, such that he knows she is there and she can be a target. So, if she is worried about becoming a rape victim, all she has to do is steer clear of areas where she is more likely to be raped...kinda like, if were worried about incurring the wrath of a crazy people, we'll steer clear of their vicinity so that we don't piss them off.

It's pretty simple.

11/9/2007 12:40:22 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, what did Bill Clinton do to make the Islamofascists attack us"

Instead of trolling, please find anywhere where I said Bill Clinton did NOT do anything
to further piss off the Islamofascists. Evident, though is the fact that George W
has done more poking at the hornets nest than Bill ever did.

Quote :

"So I guess I can blow up any towel head I see walking down my street...I mean, their "mere presence" in the United States is justification enough for my own type of jihad, right?"

Except none of those towel heads were here as part of a military presence conducting operations
against one of our neighbors.

Quote :

"Boone what entire army occupied Iraq that caused the 9/11 attacks?"

you like hooksaw are just trying to troll or maybe you really are that retarted.
Most of the hijackers involved in 9/11 were Saudi nationals; not Iraq and no credible evidence exists relating
Saddam to 9/11.

Quote :

"Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 12:42 PM. Reason : a]

11/9/2007 12:40:42 PM