mudcat.org: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


BS: Why no new Iraq thread?

Little Hawk 31 Mar 06 - 01:45 AM
Arne 31 Mar 06 - 01:39 AM
Ron Davies 30 Mar 06 - 11:27 PM
Ron Davies 30 Mar 06 - 11:23 PM
Teribus 30 Mar 06 - 11:08 PM
Peace 30 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM
GUEST,TIA 30 Mar 06 - 01:06 PM
The Fooles Troupe 30 Mar 06 - 08:18 AM
Keith A of Hertford 30 Mar 06 - 07:46 AM
Arne 30 Mar 06 - 02:22 AM
Ron Davies 29 Mar 06 - 11:26 PM
Little Hawk 29 Mar 06 - 11:23 PM
Arne 29 Mar 06 - 11:01 PM
Alba 29 Mar 06 - 09:40 AM
Teribus 29 Mar 06 - 08:33 AM
Peace 28 Mar 06 - 11:29 PM
Ron Davies 28 Mar 06 - 11:24 PM
Teribus 28 Mar 06 - 10:59 PM
Peace 28 Mar 06 - 07:43 PM
The Fooles Troupe 28 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM
Alba 28 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM
Teribus 28 Mar 06 - 10:40 AM
Little Hawk 28 Mar 06 - 01:25 AM
Ron Davies 28 Mar 06 - 12:00 AM
Teribus 27 Mar 06 - 10:28 PM
GUEST,AR282 27 Mar 06 - 09:47 PM
Teribus 27 Mar 06 - 01:44 PM
The Fooles Troupe 27 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM
GUEST 27 Mar 06 - 12:58 AM
michaelr 27 Mar 06 - 12:03 AM
Alba 26 Mar 06 - 11:56 PM
The Fooles Troupe 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM
Teribus 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM
michaelr 26 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM
GUEST,dianavan 26 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM
GUEST 26 Mar 06 - 01:59 PM
The Fooles Troupe 26 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM
The Fooles Troupe 26 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM
Teribus 26 Mar 06 - 05:09 AM
GUEST 25 Mar 06 - 08:57 PM
GUEST 25 Mar 06 - 08:55 PM
Teribus 25 Mar 06 - 07:55 PM
GUEST 25 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM
Teribus 25 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM
The Fooles Troupe 24 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM
Alba 24 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 06 - 04:00 PM
Teribus 24 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM
Ron Davies 24 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM
Teribus 24 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:45 AM

I am a student of history, teribus, but that doesn't mean I know everything. ;-) Nor does it mean I have the time to exhaustively search out and document every last detail of everything there is to discuss. I wonder that you do (apparently).

We usually agree on most WWII stuff, I've noticed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 31 Mar 06 - 01:39 AM

Teribus:

None of you are students of history,...

Ummm, you misspelled "prevarications and hallucinations". HTH.

... you are all slave to your own political leanings.

It's so awesome to see projection so masterfully displayed in all its full splendour.

Say, speaking of history, have you ever read Stephen Kinzer's "All The Shah's Men"? From what I see of you, I doubt it.... Sad, really. Might have given you some insight into the topics under discussion here.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:27 PM

And as for being a student of history, without political leanings--anything you say, O Great Oracle of Objectivity.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:23 PM

Teribus--

It breaks my heart to have to tell you that realism is actually rather useful in foreign policy analysis--you may want to try it some day. It should be obvious even to you that winning Sunni approval of any Iraqi government is the only way that government can survive. Without Sunni support of the government, the supply of insurgents is bottomless.

And, as I said, unless Bush and the Bushites (including your good self) can tell us why the Coalition troops should stay in Iraq, we'll be forced to the conclusion that you have no idea--and therefore they should come home.

And I'm still waiting for your description of "victory" in Iraq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 11:08 PM

Ron Davies - 29 Mar 06 - 11:26 PM

and others, particularly Alba, Arne, Foolestroupe, Little Hawk and GUEST TIA - None of you are students of history, you are all slave to your own political leanings.

Ron what MY perspective on Iraq is, is completely irrelevant, I do not work there, I do not live there, I do not struggle to bring up a family there. If I did one thing would be obvious to me, one side offers me hope for a future, the other side offers nothing but death and destruction, after which there is what? A return to the days where a minority dictated what was right for them at the expense of all other fellow citizens. But here is one thing Ron, at least I do recognise that there are many different perspectives to be judged, while you merely hammer on about the rights, interests and financial future of the one sect that have been terrorising the country for the last forty years.

Tell us Foolestoupe, just exactly what is Australia's take on things in Iraq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM

Don't misunderestimate the depth of his thinking.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 01:06 PM

Is Teribus implying that "victory" will be achieved when all the folks on his list are satisfied?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 08:18 AM

QUOTE
You want me to tell you what exactly "victory" in Iraq would consist of this time.

OK, how long do you have?

Oh, and from whose perspective? The list is quite long:
UNQUOTE

Missed Australia...


but then there are several different opinions in Australia too...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 07:46 AM

Yugoslavia fell apart when Tito died.
It now has an uneasy peace, and the tourists are returning.
Sadaam is not a young man.
How much of the current turmoil in Iraq would have happened anyway when he lost his grip?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 30 Mar 06 - 02:22 AM

LH:

I see little possibility of real victory in Iraq for anyone at all. Just a whole big heap of misery, all around, lasting for generations.

See my new thread "BS: It's a new day dawning in Iraq". Teribus ought to take a gander over there too.

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:26 PM

Teribus--

You are a past master at answers which are not answers.

I suspect my question was actually quite clear to you: What will victory this time in Iraq consist of--from YOUR perspective?   What do YOU think it would look like? I'm sure it would be fascinating to see it from all the viewpoints you have cited--but I am only interested in YOUR view. I have the inexplicable nagging feeling that your list might just possibly be one of your standard red herrings--can't imagine why that suspicion should cross my mind.

Also waiting for you to tell us why the parallel with Yugoslavia does not hold. Perhaps you recall how Yugoslavia ended up. Or perhaps that's another of the distressingly many gaps in your education.

And what progress has been made toward addressing Sunni concerns?--which is, as I have said more than once, is the only way to defuse the insurgency.

Awaiting your next fact-filled, objective post.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:23 PM

I see little possibility of real victory in Iraq for anyone at all. Just a whole big heap of misery, all around, lasting for generations.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:01 PM

I think that Teribus is finally starting to get a glimmer of understanding of what the problem is..... But don't count on it; I may be judging too quickly and/or misoverestimating him. ;-)

Cheers,


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 09:40 AM

Ron...how long do you have? Do any of us know the answer to that question. That is deep. Does a Soldier, Civilian, Insurgent know if they will get through this day in Iraq or Afghanistan or in all the other areas of Conflict around this sad Earth...now that is a serious question. (How long do we have mmm, ponder.)

This should be good Ron. So many choices. Like 'Pick and Mix at Woolworth', remember that anyone?

Pick a topic any topic, just look at that list!!!!! Impressive huh!
I am in awe, no wait, shock at the vastness of knowledge that must be lurking within the mind of the List creator.
I am bloody stunned. Damn he's good eh?
I am also sure that any answer you receive will contain no references to anyone else's thinking on the subject. The answers you receive will ALL be based on the Writer's totally non bias completely indepedent thought process.

Now as for me, I have already read, cover to cover, 'The Sun newspaper' (a favorite read of the prejudice bigot and bias plebians with no capacity for independent thought) this fine morning and now am armed with my daily update on the War, so I already know all the answers to the topics you are being offered Ron.

Go for it Ron....be prepared to be Awed and Shocked or is it Shocked and Awed?
I would need to go and look through my old copies of the Sun to check what term is correct. I may be gone sometime, 3 years of back issues to search through. In fact as I don't know how long I have got...I will just skip it I think and go and do my Garden instead. Silly Billy that I am (what is the female of the handle) oh yes Silly Alba that I am *giggle, giggle*
Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh, (the sound of humor and cynical wit flying right over someone's head))
Good luck Ron, you are brave and courageous man if you bother to get into this one:)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 08:33 AM

So Ron,

You want me to tell you what exactly "victory" in Iraq would consist of this time.

OK, how long do you have?

Oh, and from whose perspective? The list is quite long:
- Iraqi Federalists;
- Iraqi Secularists;
- Iraqi Arab Shia followers of Sadr;
- Iraqi Arab Shia followers of Al Sistani;
- The Maadan;
- Iraqi Arab Sunni's;
- Iraqi Kurdish Shia;
- Former Ba'athist Party Members;
- Iraqi Christians;
- Expatriate Iraqi's;
- Jordanians;
- Syrians;
- Turkish Kurds;
- Iranian Kurds;
- Iranian Arab Shia;
- Iranian Government;
- Kuwaiti Government;
- Saudi Government;
- United Arab Emirates;
- Israel;
- EU;
- UN;
- USA;
- UK;
- France;
- China;
- Russia;
- Germany;
- Al Qaeda in Iraq;
- Sadr Brigade;
- Medhi Army;
- Answar al Islam;
- Al Qaeda;


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:29 PM

"Why no new Iraq thread?"

IMO, it's because there is no new Iraq.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:24 PM

Teribus--

Still waiting, with the patience of Job---which dealing with you seems to require--for you to tell us what exactly "victory" in Iraq would consist of this time, since the last one does not seem to have prevented over 2200 "Coalition" deaths and the deaths of uncounted Iraqis.

If you don't give an answer I'll be forced unwillingly to the conclusion that you have no idea--unsurprising, considering your track record of error. You are, admittedly, in good company there--your mighty leader (Bush) has no idea either. (Yes I know you're from the UK).

However, if Bush and the Bushites have no idea why soldiers should fight and possibly die in Iraq, it will become progressively more difficult to find the cannon fodder you need-- and even more difficult to persuade the US and UK publics to support a never-ending, tragic, horrendously expensive, useless war, only begun thanks to a despicable propaganda campaign. So far you have given us no reason why the "Coalition" forces should stay in Iraq--beyond absurdly ridiculous attempted parallels with Hitler--feeble even for you.

I'd also like you to tell us why you judge that the parallel of Yugoslavia with Iraq is not apt.

And I see no progress towards addressing Sunni concerns--which is the only way to defuse the insurgency. I would think even you would know that the "body count game" will not cut it.

Rather than progress, the most recent news is that the Shiites have withdrawn from negotiations towards a unity government--in protest against a supposedly successful raid--the sort which Bush apologists are trumpeting as indication Iraqis are taking over operations--which appears to have killed civilians.

The more days go by, the less likely "Iraq" will survive--since the sectarian split is growing, not narrowing, and since Iraqis who could have helped Iraq are--for good reason--fleeing every day.

Your move, Mr. Pollyanna.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:59 PM

Very quick snap-shot of LH's Post,

"There's oil out there that's not under American jurisdiction yet. There's a lot of it in Iran and South America."

The usual story about 'evil America', I have asked a number of times how they are supposed to achieve this. None of America's detractors have ever explained how the US does it. Oil/Natural Gas is a natural resource, a commodity, the price of which is controlled by an international market.

"There's more oil in the Caspian, and plans to move it by pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean."

Oh yes, Don F's much favoured TAP Project which even to the Arab Development Bank is a dead duck. Maybe Little Hawk doesn't know it but there are two very large pipelines exporting oil from Azerbaijan (through Russia, Georgia to the Black Sea and another through Turkey to the Mediterranean) there are five, I believe taking oil and gas from the eastern side of the Caspian north and west into Russia. The TAP was originally proposed to satisfy India's growing fuel needs, the project is now no longer favoured because India will be getting it's supplies from Iran via another route. That is a project that is up and running that pipeline is being built the TAP is not.

"Afghanistan is now growing its poppy fields again, full scale."

Well actually no it is not, in fact less fields under cultivation no than before. Only problem is that they have been enjoying bumber harvests so the yield per acre is greater, and programmes are underway to convince the farmers to grow other crops.

"The international drug trade resumes..."

Is Little Hawk trying to tell us that it ever stopped while the Taleban were in power, or any other time? Oh yes I see he did:

"Those crazy frikkin' Taliban had shut it all down...blasted religious fanatics! You can't depend on people like that to be sane and rational about business."

Absolute rubbish, of course they didn't shut it all down, they relied on it for their revenue, and still do to a certain extent. The Taleban may have decreed that all production must stop, as has the present Afghan Government, but that is as far as it went. Even at the height of their power the Taleban never were in a position to govern Afghanistan or impose their will on the warlords and the tribes. Oh, LH, the largest poppy growing area in Afghanistan - Helmand right in the middle of the Pashtun Taleban heartland.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:43 PM

"I have been told by an expert that the Mudcat Member 'Alba' (that would be Me) is incapable of independent thought, is bias, predjudice, and a pathetic bigot who would rather people died in Conflict."

Whoever said that don't know beans.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM

"Little Hawk - 28 Mar 06 - 01:25 AM

Re your post - What complete and utter rubbish. "


Yeah, rubbish - but nice profitable rubbish...


"I have been told by an expert that the Mudcat Member 'Alba' (that would be Me) is incapable of independent thought, is bias, predjudice, and a pathetic bigot who would rather people died in Conflict."

I'm supposed to be a Leftie, but I'm actually ambudexterous!

So is Mr T - he uses both hands!

Surely he couldn't get that silly using only one...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM

Well now, that's you told LH.
I, however, found your opinion on the subject interesting.
(It is alright to find other people's opinions interesting I hope)
If I have offended any Expert on the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan on this Thread by that admission it was not my intention.
Then again what would I know, as I have been told by an expert that the Mudcat Member 'Alba' (that would be Me) is incapable of independent thought, is bias, predjudice, and a pathetic bigot who would rather people died in Conflict.

You got off light LH, you just got told your post was rubbish and that doesn't count, in my book anyway, as a total public character assasination.
Someone must like you and thus you were spared.

J


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:40 AM

Ron Davies - 28 Mar 06 - 12:00 AM

If you bothered to check Ron you would find that I have always predicted that in both Afghanistan and in Iraq the US would find themselves committed for a long, long time. My example that I quoted was Malaya 1947 to 1964.

Little Hawk - 28 Mar 06 - 01:25 AM

Re your post - What complete and utter rubbish.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:25 AM

There may be bigger stuff ahead than Iraq, Ron. The thing to do when a "victory" doesn't pan out is to seek a new and fresh victory somewhere else. This has long been a pattern of conquering empires. Watch for it.

There's oil out there that's not under American jurisdiction yet. There's a lot of it in Iran and South America. There's more oil in the Caspian, and plans to move it by pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean.

Iraq is just one step on the way. It wasn't about WMDs. It wasn't about 911. It wasn't about Osama. It wasn't about democracy. It was about strategic regions, empire building, and oil....

Oh, and drugs. Let's not forget drugs. Afghanistan is now growing its poppy fields again, full scale. The international drug trade resumes...and the CIA is happy. Wall Street is happy. The World Bank is happy. Those crazy frikkin' Taliban had shut it all down...blasted religious fanatics! You can't depend on people like that to be sane and rational about business. There was a while there when just about the only drug production in Afghanistan was happening in the American-backed Northern Alliance-controlled sector. Well, happy days are here again, because all of Afghanistan is supplying the hard stuff to the world now. Yippee. Every major dealer in North America owes Bush a big thank you for that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:00 AM

Teribus--

Fascinating that you still haven't found time to tell us what "victory" in Iraq will consist of this time--since the last "victory" has not prevented about 2200 "Coalition" deaths--and uncounted dead Iraqis.

Your answer will be particularly of interest since you have said we should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes"--i.e. til "victory". And evidently it makes no difference to you how many are killed until this elusive and ever-changing "victory".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:28 PM

GUEST,AR282,

They did find IED's and one of them had to be set off, in place damaging a vehicle. They did find 11 caches of weapons, expolsives, bomb making equipment, shoulder fire AA missiles and other materials amounting to a heap of stuff awfully useful to an insurgent, but not so healthy for the Iraqi population at large.

The Operation was directed by Iraqi Security Forces acting on information received from the local population - Anybody fond of making Vietnam comparisons with regard to Iraq who has read anything by a Vietnamese General called Giap might realise the significance of that. Certainly not a flop, or a waste of time, by any standard, but that would have to depend on whose side you're on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:47 PM

>>Was anybody killed during Operation Swarmer? - The answer to that is no.<<

Which I prefer to think is true. I've heard the same thing, it's a big flop. A big hullabaloo about nothing. Grandstanding by Bush to look like he's doing something other than sending out troops to surround an area and take all the men and boys as prisoners and call them "insurgents." You'd think if there were really any trained insurgents fighters there, then we would see some carnage however slight but these reports strongly indicate that the Americans are meeting no resistance at all. No shots fired, no deaths, no casualities, no booby-traps, no ambush, no IEDs. This means there is no resistance. So who are they arrresting?

Otoh, this administration lies and spins so much that who knows who the Americans or American-backed Iraqis may have killed? But, from what I hear, Swarmer is largely a waste of time as anything other than a public relations gag.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 01:44 PM

GUEST 27 Mar 06 - 12:58 AM

The location of the incident in the article you provided a link for, the 'village' of Isshaq, is East-South-East of Samarra. Operation Swarmer comprised of a 10 mile by 10 mile area to the North-East of Samarra. Population of the area 7km round Isshaq just under 16,000, population contained within the operating area of Operation Swarmer was reported as being 1500.

There are 25 accredited journalists embedded with the 101st Airborne, there is a site that gives you figures for the numbers embedded with other units. As far as I know Aid Workers and NGO's have never been embedded with troops on operations.

Keeping NGO's and Journalists out of an area populated with only 1500 people would not be much of a cover up tactic, unless of course they think they could keep them out forever. Widely reported that 104 were arrested, no shots fired, no casualties, no fatalities, so in a couple of weeks time somebody can bimble in there and do count. If the number is markedly less than 1396 then there might be something worth having a look at.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

Where's Wally?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:58 AM

teribus - Are we talking about the area in and around Samarra?

If so, where did you get the idea that there were 25 imbedded journalists? From what I understand, not even aid workers have been allowed inside.

From Rueters: "US and Iraqi military groups have prevented the entrance of local NGOs as well as the media to show the reality of human rights violation inside it," he added.

According to al-Daraji, no citizens have been allowed to leave the city, some 120 km north of the capital, Baghdad, since the operation began on 16 March. US forces along with Iraqi commandos say the operation is necessary to flush out insurgents in the area."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: michaelr
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 12:03 AM

100! Not bad for a "no new" thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:56 PM

...Wizard? Wordsmith? Wonder Worker? Wombat? Windowcleaner?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM

Yer right, he's a W.....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM

Guest,

Your link identified the location as Isshaq and the time and date as being 01:30AM on the moring of 21st March.

Then go and look up Isshaq that is where the population statistic came from.

Isshaq lies to the East of the area covered during Operation Swarmer, the population indicated is ten times that of the area in which Operation Swarmer took place. 101st Airbourne has 25 journalists embedded. All reports indicate no fatalities, no casualties, no shots fired.

Was anybody killed during Operation Swarmer? - The answer to that is no.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: michaelr
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

stereotypical uneducated ignorant narrow minded bullying fascist Yank

I protest this unwarranted insult as a lowly personal attack!









Terribus is not a Yank.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

Got this from the Washington Post but there are other sources if you want to verify this info.

"Iraqi authorities also said late Sunday that U.S. forces raided an Interior Ministry building and arrested 40 policemen after discovering 17 non-Iraqi prisoners in the facility.

Police 1st Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said the arrested police were being held for investigation, but the reason was not known. Mahmoud said the U.S. forces remained at the building and were guarding the 17 foreigners."

I don't know how anyone could read this article without realizing that there is definitely civil war in Iraq.

Bush is a monster for unleashing this carnage.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 01:59 PM

Teribus - You must be reading some other article. The article I linked only talks about civilians in Samarra on March 21st. Where are you getting the population figures and the actual geography covered.

Quit throwing out 'red herrings' and answer your own question, "Was anyone killed during operation swarmer?"

The answer is, yes, women and children.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Hey, Teribus, if you want to hurl abuse at people for "Shock and Awe" tactics, instead of using stereotypical clichéd simple words which only displays a limited capability for 'independent thinking', why not try to be creative?

May you be mocked by eunuchs, thou dabbler in abominations!

Lost for a smart remark to see off your enemies? Unable to deliver that killer insult?

Put an end to "I was speechless!" misery with the amazing Biblical Curse Generator, which is pre-loaded with blistering put-downs as delivered by Elijah, Jeremiah and other monumentally angry saints.

Simply click the button below, and get ready to smite your foes with a custom-made curse straight out of the Old Testament.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

"including your moronic, trendy, leftist belief in stereotypes"

Ha!Ha! Coming from someone displaying all the signs of a stereotypical uneducated ignorant narrow minded bullying fascist Yank, that is praise indeed! Every 'Intellectual' HAS to he 'Left of Centre' for stereotypical morons like you! :-) And you have worked HARD to generate that impression, mate!

And you wonder why the rest of the world is a little disturbed at Yanks like you prowling the world armed with nuclear weapons without adult supervision?!!!


Actually, Teribus may be right - on further thought, I may have misheard (since I often listen to the radio in the background) that a US soldier had been killed in Afghanistan that day, instead of Iraq. Unlike Teribus, I am not infallible, I may have confused the two.

Still a US family mourning a death, but now at least you are pedantically happier I suppose, having proved your infallibility.

When you stoop to foul mouthed name calling, you have lost the plot, as well as the argument. I will now never grant you any credibility in future, either. You have demonstrated that you are just a foul mouthed brainwashed fascist mouthpiece.

"The only real difference between you and Mr MG is that you haven't used foul language - yet! Actually that might be insulting Mr MG... "

Come back Martin, all is .... :-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 05:09 AM

Read your link, a number of things mentioned do not add up.

The location, have a look at where it is, have a look at the population, given as being just under 16,000. Doesn't tally with any other report which puts the population of the area covered during Operation Swarmer as slightly less than one tenth of the figure given above.

Timing 01:30hrs three days into the operation, when, by that stage they knew there was no resistence and had reduced their force level by almost 50%

Sorry GUEST, your article is a fairytale.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:57 PM

tsk, tsk, teribus. You know that name calling is the coward's way of arguing.

If they are cunts, I guess that makes you a little prick.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:55 PM

teribus -

Here's the link:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m21896&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Read it and tell me if you think anyone was killed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:55 PM

Looked at your link GUEST and found nothing.

Did see this though:

The locusts stripping Iraq bare are insulted. General Sir Michael Jackson, a Bloody Sunday criminal, a Kosovo war criminal and now a loyal goon in the mobbing of Baghdad, told ITN that he was "saddened that there does not seem to have been a note of gratitude for the soldiers who risked their lives to save those lives". ITN arranged a phone-in programme about the release of Norman Kember and the Christian peacekeepers who were with him. The question: "Do you believe Norman Kember was right to put his life in danger for the sake of the Iraqi people? Or, do do you believe he's been irresponsible?" Such a question has its own pre-written answers. It calls upon ingrained cultural prejudices, sullen racism, resentment against do-gooders, those who have the temerity, the audacity, to actually consider the lives of Iraqis worth protecting and respecting...

Now the above was written by complete and utter cunts every single one


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM

From uruknet.info: "All told, the operation to kill "insurgents" left six children and four women dead."

So the answer is, yes, people were killed during operation swarmer.

As usual, no insurgents and no troops, just innocent civilians.

Must make you proud, Teribus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Foolestroupe, judging by most of what you say on this forum, including your moronic, trendy, leftist belief in stereotypes, I would doubt very much if you have ever exercised independent thought in your life. You also seem to be entirely incapable of differentiating one event from another. And while you feel that you don't have to apologise for anything:

"I wasn't mistaken about hearing it on the news, and I have no reason to apologise for OTHER people getting things wrong!"

What you do have to apologise for Foolestroupe is for propagating something you know to be untrue, after it has been proved untrue. Now just exactly how many people were killed in Operation Swarmer Foolestroupe? Was anybody killed during that operation? A simple Yes or No will suffice.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE
Foolstoupe,

A little litmus test for you with regard to this thread. What I have stated on it as fact is borne out by events and as such can be verified. What you have stated as fact has not even happened.
UNQUOTE

You must be getting harried, Mr T, when you can't even cut and paste my handle correctly! Or with your alleged 'military background', can't you really cope with genuine 'independent thought'? Military 'independent though' is really an oxymoron - for morons! :-)

In case you haven't worked it out for yourself yet, your sort of imposition of the "correct way of 'independent thinking'" being imposed by our political puppet masters is just what a few here are objecting to!

Your 'facts' seem to be imparted to you in much the same way as Georgie Boy gets his! (After all he doesn't waste his time watching public media, does he?)

Well, your unimpeachable source lied about a bunch of Iraqi civilians, including babies, slaughtered in revenge (as witnessed by a surviving child) by US forces for an IED - a 'war crime' for as long as they could get away with it, until evidence which they themselves admitted was irrefutable was forced before them and the whole world. Your unimpeachable source told the world that the civilians were killed by the same IED that killed US servicemen! And then they they were killed in the crossfire in the resulting firefight! When the footage clearly shows that the rounds were fired INSIDE the buildings!

And you wonder why some of use are cynical about ANYTHING that source wants us to believe - just as we are cynical about your 'incorruptible truths'? And this is not 'another Vietnam'? Can you spell 'Mai Lai'? Not sure that I can...


And now, Afghanistan, - where Georgie Boy 'successfully imposed democracy', including acceptance of the UN Human Rights Declaration, is going to execute under Sharia Law which the constitution (accepted by Georgie Boy!) states overrides any other civil agreements, a Muslim who converted to Christianity.

Own Goal again for you Mr T!

QUOTE
Foolestroupe - 18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
"Well, you can be happier now, Teribus, on tonight's news I heard that one US army personnel was killed"

Please note Foolestoupe still hasn't had either the honesty, or decency, to admit that he/she was mistaken. Fact is to date no-one has been killed in the execution of Operation Swarmer, in maintaining that there have been casualties Foolstroupe, you only succeed in discrediting yourself.
UNQUOTE

I wasn't mistaken about hearing it on the news, and I have no reason to apologise for OTHER people getting things wrong!

"but on this occasion the media got caught out, but oh dear me, YOUR prejudices will just not let you recognise, or believe that. "

or your prejusices...


"All I know is that as far as the SAS goes, I have been trained by them, trained with them and worked with them. "

You don't like to admit that you are wrong either - I know what our pollies were bragging about - 2 man teams was apparently what they were wanted for MOST of the time!


QUOTE
Alba - 17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM
"Although if I think about it, I suppose 50 Copters in the air may possibly look like a swarm of insects..! So at least there was a teeny tiny bit of imagination used in the naming of this..'sting'"

So I take it Alba that you would rather see the people detained released and their weapons restored to them so that they could go out and kill some more Iraqi civilians.
UNQUOTE

Thereby you demonstrate your narrow mindedness, and inability to cope with satire and cynicism!

"Alba, if you are in any way capable of independent thought go back and read my initial post to this thread."

So 'SAS trained' 'independent thought' consists in all of us just thinking what you what us all to think? Just because you were ordered to train and work with them, doesn't mean you really have the intellectual capacity... :-)


"One more thing--you admit the insurgency is mostly home-grown? Yes or no?--a one word answer will suffice. "

No answer either way yet from Mr T - which substantiates that his (maybe self-appointed?) task here is obfuscation and misdirection, not genuine open minded 'independent thinking' debate. !!!!

The only real difference between you and Mr MG is that you haven't used foul language - yet! Actually that might be insulting Mr MG...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM

ROFL...Oh I am so capable of independent thought Teribus.
My predudices..:)
Ok. Your right. Literally.

J


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:00 PM

Teribus--

As I said earlier, which "Iraqi people"?-the Sunnis who are killing the Shiites, the Shiites who are killing the Sunnis, or the Kurds who want nothing to do with "Iraq"?

Or the intellectuals and professional classes who have fled or are fleeing the country?

If the constitution is not changed to take the Sunnis' interests into account, the civil war stands to do nothing but get worse.


And by the way--you still haven't bothered to tell us what "victory" is this time--the last one somehow wasn't impressive.

The "Iraqi people" are a "people" as much as the "Yugoslav people" were. Wake up.

"Iraq" was a totally artificial construction which has never been without a ruler.   One ruler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

Glass half empty again Ron.

Oh Doom, Oh Gloom, Oh ye of little faith, the Iraqi people will surprise you Ron.

By the way about those F-102A Air National Guard Pilots? Just slipped your mind again did it Ron, or are you honest enough to admit that you just made it up.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM

It's no cause for anybody to be happy--but "Operation Swarmer" is over, and Iraq continues to turn into Lebanon of the 1980's--or worse--"ethnic cleansing" and beyond. That's how much impact "Operation Swarmer" had. And the deterioration won't stop until the problems I have cited are addressed--if indeed "Iraq" can be salvaged at all.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM

Foolstoupe,

A little litmus test for you with regard to this thread. What I have stated on it as fact is borne out by events and as such can be verified. What you have stated as fact has not even happened.

Same goes for some others:
Bee-dubya-ell - 17 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM
"The 'copters themselves haven't fired a shot and the guys on the ground haven't been doing much either."

Apart for arrest and detain over 60 suspected insurgents and capture weapons, explosives, timing devices, detonators, training material, none of which can now be used to kill innocent civilians. Bee-dubya, I can only comment that you must take some pleasing, and that thank goodness I don't have to do it.

Alba - 17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM
"Although if I think about it, I suppose 50 Copters in the air may possibly look like a swarm of insects..! So at least there was a teeny tiny bit of imagination used in the naming of this..'sting'"

So I take it Alba that you would rather see the people detained released and their weapons restored to them so that they could go out and kill some more Iraqi civilians. All in order that you could then blame the US for creating the circumstance and allowing it to happen. Your bigotry and bias are nothing short of pathetic, ask the hostages rescued and released yesterday about an operation that was carried out on information received, this time extracted from a detainee. The information obtained led the MNF directly to the house where the men had been kept for four months. Not a shot fired Alba, was that all "hype"? was that a failure?

McGrath of Harlow - 17 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM
"Foreign armies just cannot win this kind of conflict - you'd think they'd know by now."

They did in Greece, they did in Malaya, they did in Borneo.

Alba - 17 Mar 06 - 11:10 PM - On Operation Swarmer - The punchline
"I give it a Thumbs down."

Now let's take a look at what Alba gave the thumbs down to (Couresy of beardedbruce):
More than 60 suspected insurgents detained.
A total of 11 caches discovered. These have included:
- More than 350 mortar rounds of varying sizes
- 88 rocket propelled grenade rounds
- Nearly 2,000 rounds of armor-piercing rifle ammunition
- More than 15 rockets of varying sizes
- Over 60 hand grenades
- SA-7 surface-to-air missile components, including launcher tubes and batteries
- 30 machine guns and assault rifles

The following items were among the IED-making materials discovered since the operation began:

- More than 500 feet of explosive detonating cord;
- 50 explosive blasting caps;
- 25 130 mm artillery rounds packed with plastic explosive;
- Various remote initiation devices, including cordless phone base stations and washing machine timers.
- Terrorist training publications.
- Iraqi Army uniforms and videos have been recovered.
- Video footage portrayed U.S. troop locations in Iraq.
- Instructions relating to the rigging and detonation of a car bomb.
- Equipment taken from Iraqi Police.

OK Alba, tell us just what you think was going to be done with the above, tell us that you would rather have just let it stay in the hands of those who had it.

Foolestroupe - 18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM
"Well, you can be happier now, Teribus, on tonight's news I heard that one US army personnel was killed"

Please note Foolestoupe still hasn't had either the honesty, or decency, to admit that he/she was mistaken. Fact is to date no-one has been killed in the execution of Operation Swarmer, in maintaining that there have been casualties Foolstroupe, you only succeed in discrediting yourself.

Foolestroupe - 23 Mar 06 - 06:58 AM

"normally in 4-man teams, although they could possibly split into two 2's"
Obviously then Aussie politicians don't know what they are talking about then when they are bragging about the Aussie SAS to the Aussie electorate"

I wouldn't know about the Australian politicians that you are referring to Foolstroupe. Maybe they do know what they are talking about, maybe they don't. All I know is that as far as the SAS goes, I have been trained by them, trained with them and worked with them. Now I know, from personal experience, that they normally operate in 4-man teams, if you say that you and the Aussie Politicians in which you place so much faith know better, then all well and good, I, however, will rely on what I know to be fact.

Alba - 23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM
"Teribus, you are without a doubt in my mind "One that believes the "Hype" I see." Not only the Bush and Co's hype but your own."

Alba, if you are in any way capable of independent thought go back and read my initial post to this thread. If there was any "hype" it was generated by the media, not by "Bush and Co.", but on this occasion the media got caught out, but oh dear me, YOUR prejudices will just not let you recognise, or believe that.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 22 January 9:50 AM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.