The Iraq thread 3

[Bernadotte 0]

I am sure if Iraq war had run different than it does now Syria would be next on the list.

Syria and several other countries are already on the list, but we're not talking about lists.  We're talking about Congressional mandates.  We're talking about the US house of representative authorising the president to go to war with another country.

Lists are cheap.  Administrations make lists all the time.  However, Congressional authorisations to send American soldiers to war don't come cheap.  Even with all the wrongs committed by Iraq, the Congress still placed significant conditions on TBA's use of their authorisation.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

From now on it could be pretty easy to justify by just repeating the following words over and over again "WMD, mad man, 911, Al Quaida", facts dont play a role!

How very insulting.

Rude?

Okay let me rephrase. "actions will come before facts have been actually checked"

[quicksand 0]

Meanwhile in Iraq:

Soldiers burning inside vehicles

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Insurgents attacked a U.S. convoy carrying fuel west of Baghdad Friday, killing at least nine people, witnesses said.

A Reuters photographer on the scene said he saw bodies burning inside the vehicles, which were still on fire near Abu Ghraib. He said the convoy included U.S. military vehicles and fuel tankers.

Huge clouds of black smoke hung over the area, visible from several kilometers away. There was heavy fighting between U.S. troops and guerrillas in Abu Ghraib Thursday.

Truckloads of people from the area have also tried to head further west to help other insurgents battling U.S. forces in Falluja and Ramadi.

-6 US soldiers are also reported killed in action yesterday by CENTCOM

US declares ceasfire in Fallujah

Quote[/b] ]"As of noon today coalition forces have initiated a unilateral suspension of offensive operations in Fallujah to allow for a meeting between members of the Governing Council, the local Muslim leadership and the leadership of anti-coalition forces," Mr Bremer told reporters.

Wait now they say they want to negotiate with the people they called Saddam loyallists,terrorists and thugs?

Looks like it`s confirmed that progress wasn`t good in the city at all...

[Col. Kurtz 0]

US declares ceasefire in Falluja

Quote[/b] ]US administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer says US forces have suspended offensive operations in the town of Falluja.

The move came on the fifth day of a battle for control of the Sunni town that has left up to 300 Iraqis dead.

Mr Bremer said the aim was to try to initiate talks with local insurgents and allow aid deliveries.

Fierce battles are continuing further south, where coalition troops are battling Shia militias in Karbala and say they have retaken the city of Kut.

Perhaps things are not going as smoothly as planned and the US has decided it might be wiser to talk this out?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Considering the symbolism of this exact date I assume it is kind of quiet.

[denoir 0]

Five days ago, in the immediate aftermath of some Spanish peacekeepers shooting some Sadr supporters you said, "it looks like the Shia support is slipping."  I assumed this slipping support referred to Sadr's Shia because no other Shiite groups had responded yet.

When I say Shia, I mean Shia. Had I meant Sadr's Shias, I would have said Sadr's Shias. Furthermore 'support' in this case denotes "we'll wait and see if we'll attack you or not' and not 'we love you'. Until Sadr's rebellion the Shias have not been making any significan trouble.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I'd still like to know what makes you think Sadr was originally a threat of such magnitude that the Iraqis, plus whatever non-occupational peacekeeping mission, couldn't handle him and his thugs without America's intervention.

You are fabricating statements. I never said anything to that effect. What I said was that there is a power vacuum in Iraq after Saddam and that there are a great number of factions who are looking to grab power, Sadr being one of them. I said that without an occupational force nobody could control them and that the country would descent into civil war.

I quoted exactly what you said, but you deleted it from your reply. Then you paraphrased your original words and even added a bit about civil war. Who's fabricating statements?

You are. And I suggets that you read my statments vs your claims of what my statements are again. Sadr and 50 others that have the ambition to grab power being a problem if left alone without supervision is not the same thing as Sadr alone being a serious problem for the occupation powers.

Quote[/b] ]No, I said nothing about a list. I was merely referring to your very own words which you have again deleted from your reply (3rd time, i think). Why don't you just delete it from your original post if the words are that embarrassing for you?

I really hope that you are just bullshitting me or I have really misjudged you.

It's quite simple, you asked which country would be next on the list after Iraq ("next on the list" is an expression as you very well know.) I replied Syria and gave you a reference.

Now I don't know what your fucking problem is, but get off my ass. If you want to have a debate about the issues then I'll gladly oblige. If you have a personal problem with me then deal with it through PM:s. What? You still have hurt feelings for me kicking your ass in the Spain/terror debate? Get over it. You won't win a debate by personal attacks and by twisting my statements or completely fabricating them.

And no, I'm not including the entire previous discussion quoted in my posts. It's for the very obvious reason that the length of the posts here would be hundreds of pages long should we include all previous posts.

Quote[/b] ]Under present circumstances think it's an utter fantasy to believe Bush could have received Congressional backing to attack Syria, regardless of the success of the Iraqi occupation or whether or not it's an election year.

"Present circumstances"? What does that denote?

Had the Iraq war been a success story and if the happy liberated Iraqi people would have been celebrating their freedom by naming their first borns "George", are you saying that Bush would have not gotten congressional permisson to go to war with Syria?

[bn880 5]

another fact is that US military resource is stretched thin as it's now. what makes you think that another war against Syria is going to happen? Iraq itself is more than what can be handled.

I told you last year, they will pull out to get another battle going elsewhere. (otherwise they will jsut pull out and stop there for a while)

What do you think? Do you think it 's normal to talk about handing over power in July? To whom exactly? No they will simply leave what they can in Iraq in the next dozen months.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]I quoted exactly what you said, but you deleted it from your reply.  Then you paraphrased your original words and even added a bit about civil war.  Who's fabricating statements?

You are. And I suggets that you read my statments vs your claims of what my statements are again.

No need.  As you know, I included your original statements along with my interpretation of them but you cleverly deleted them from my post when you quoted me and accused me of creating fabrications.

It's quite simple, you asked which country would be next on the list after Iraq ("next on the list" is an expression as you very well know.) I replied Syria and gave you a reference.

Please show me where I asked, "which country would be next on the list after Iraq."  You are fabricating again.

The question was actually asked as follows:

QUESTION:  Had the Iraqi occupation been a success story, for which country would Bush have received a mandate from Congress and the American people to move on to and enforce the neocon vision of pax Americana?

(And you are not saving any space in your posts by deleting my original question just to replace it with your own version.)

Quote[/b] ]Under present circumstances I think it's an utter fantasy to believe Bush could have received Congressional backing to attack Syria, regardless of the success of the Iraqi occupation or whether or not it's an election year.

"Present circumstances"? What does that denote?

Present circumstances means without introducing hypothetical circumstances beyond there having been success in Iraq and no election year.

Had the Iraq war been a success story and if the happy liberated Iraqi people would have been celebrating their freedom by naming their first borns "George", are you saying that Bush would have not gotten congressional permisson to go to war with Syria?

Yes, I'm saying Bush would not have gotten congressional permission to go to war with Syria.  In my opinion, the notion is an irresponsible, America-bashing fantasy.

Nevermind that Syria has held a seat on the UN Security Council and has been of great assistance in tracking down AQ suspects, but Syrian President Bashar Assad was even scheduled to meet with Israel's President a few months ago for peace talks in Jerusalem.  I am no fan of Assad jr, but circumstances would have to change dramatically for the worse before the US Congress could regard him as equally threatening as Saddam Hussein.

[NavyEEL 0]

another fact is that US military resource is stretched thin as it's now. what makes you think that another war against Syria is going to happen? Iraq itself is more than what can be handled.

I told you last year, they will pull out to get another battle going elsewhere. (otherwise they will jsut pull out and stop there for a while)

What do you think?  Do you think it 's normal to talk about handing over power in July?  To whom exactly?  No they will simply leave what they can in Iraq in the next dozen months.

It's necessary to hand over power in July, or at least some time before the election. Not only is it important to give the Iraqis power and self-government as soon as possible, but the President has no choice. If he delays giving power back to Iraq and he ends up losing the election, then the new President could choose to pull out of Iraq, thus defeating our entire purpose there. Handing over power does not mean abandoning them entirely--it just means giving them control so that, in the event that a new president chooses to withdraw entirely from Iraq, at least they would have somewhat of a government already pre-established.

[Pathy 0]

I personally dont think that Bush can afford to start another war.

Firstly, who is going to believe any reason he gives for invading another country after the WMD debacle? He cant afford to take another opinion poll hit that would fall out from this.

Secondly, the USA cannot just pull out of Iraq, and they still have Afganistan to cope with. (news today that Dostum, an Uzbeki warlord has overrun one of the northern provinces.....seems the USA still has alot of work to do there......). If they were to pull out, and leave Iraq in a mess, the UN and its members would be in uproar. The USA would certainly find no allies for another war, the next one it'd have to go alone........and even the USA doesnt have those kind of resources.

Just my 2 cents....

[Pathy 0]

another fact is that US military resource is stretched thin as it's now. what makes you think that another war against Syria is going to happen? Iraq itself is more than what can be handled.

I told you last year, they will pull out to get another battle going elsewhere. (otherwise they will jsut pull out and stop there for a while)

What do you think?  Do you think it 's normal to talk about handing over power in July?  To whom exactly?  No they will simply leave what they can in Iraq in the next dozen months.

It's necessary to hand over power in July, or at least some time before the election.  Not only is it important to give the Iraqis power and self-government as soon as possible, but the President has no choice.  If he delays giving power back to Iraq and he ends up losing the election, then the new President could choose to pull out of Iraq, thus defeating our entire purpose there.  Handing over power does not mean abandoning them entirely--it just means giving them control so that, in the event that a new president chooses to withdraw entirely from Iraq, at least they would have somewhat of a government already pre-established.

A government that would probably collapse within the month......the USA would still need a presence to provide security, at the very least.......

[bn880 5]

It's not going to work, you can't hand over any power to groups in Iraq which don't even represent the people with the weapons.

[Bernadotte 0]

I really hope that you are just bullshitting me or I have really misjudged you.

...

Now I don't know what your fucking problem is, but get off my ass. If you want to have a debate about the issues then I'll gladly oblige. If you have a personal problem with me then deal with it through PM:s. What? You still have hurt feelings for me kicking your ass in the Spain/terror debate? Get over it.

Um... chill dude.

I'm here to learn stuff.  I'm not here to kick anyone's ass.  If that's what you're here for then please feel free to have a shot at mine whenever you please.  The harder you kick, the more I'll learn.

Some people might be here for pain, pleasure or both.  I mean, whatever turns you on.  

I'm here for knowledge.  Hope that's alright with you.

[Pathy 0]

Sounds too kinky for me.....cool off gentlemen

[Pathy 0]

It's not going to work, you can't hand over any power to groups in Iraq which don't even represent the people with the weapons.

Lol yes, if you hand power over to the interim Iraqi administration or whatever they call themselves, then pull out, how long before the country plunges into civil war from which you emerge with another dictator and a real reason to hate the US even more than the last one......

[bn880 5]

Well, exactly.

[Pathy 0]

Plus, if there is another dictatorship, the whole country is going to remember how the USA came in with all these "false promises" (not implying the USA doesnt intend to rebuild iraq, but if they pull out and civil war occurs they wont be able to, then combine that with propaganda...), fucked up thier country even more than it was before, then left them...

And thus the USA will have an Arab country who will hate them even more than ever.....

[bn880 5]

So it looks like you agree.

[Bernadotte 0]

Sounds too kinky for me.....cool off gentlemen

Hang on.  I'm supposed to take that personally, aren't I.  

 

[Pathy 0]

hence the

Quote[/b] ]yes,

in my 1st thread in which i quoted you

Just joking bern, all those mentions of pleasure and pain......

[bn880 5]

It could have been sarcasm, hard to tell around here sometimes.

[Pathy 0]

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, thats way below me

There was also an article in todays times about how Iraq=new vietnam, and how the marines were comparing the fighting in Fallujah to Hue city in vietnam.

And on the front page is the story of Japanese civilains kidnapped and threatend with being burnt alive unless Japan withdraws its troops....

[Tex -USMC- 0]

sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, thats way below me  

No, puns are the lowest form of wit- I'd hate to think I've hit the bottom of the food chain so early in life.

Quote[/b] ]There was also an article in todays times about how Iraq=new vietnam, and how the marines were comparing the fighting in Fallujah to Hue city in vietnam.

Heh, Marines have a penchant for the dramatic- sure streetfighting is always a pain in the metaphorical ass, but I think comparisons to the fighting in Hue are a bit premature at this point.

[Pathy 0]

Lol yeh, plus none of the Marines in Iraq probably ever saw Hue, except from watching Full Metal Jacket.

"this is like Hue City in vietnam" said Lt Col Brennan Byrne

Hue city saw 400 US marines killed + 5,000 other soldiers, over 4 weeks as they fought to regain the city. I dont think the US casualties are going to be as high as that this time round.

[bmgarcangel 0]

Allied Death toll is now a little bit over 600

Around 400 by enemy fire

Around 600 by Friendly Fire

That friendly fire doesn't just include the americans shooting up each other by accident because of some dumbass FAC who doesn't know shit about what he's doing, i've heard that british planes struck some Marines in the north on the second month of the war and killed around 10 to 15 of our men

This is becoming a very, very, very interesting war

~Bmgarcangel