BS: Why no new Iraq thread? To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=89766
130 messages

BS: Why no new Iraq thread?

16 Mar 06 - 05:25 PM (#1695540)
Subject: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Richard Bridge

Biggest strike in Iraq since the start of "shock and awe". Why no new thread about what the idiot is up to now?


16 Mar 06 - 05:29 PM (#1695542)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

No news on it here yet, RB. Not on the 'net, anyway.


16 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM (#1695543)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

"Biggest US air strike since invasion

Associated Press
BAGHDAD, March 16. — US forces today launched what was termed the largest air assault since the US-led invasion, targeting insurgent strongholds north of the capital, the US military said. US ground troops and the Iraqi army participated.
"More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the military statement said of the attack designed to "clear a suspected insurgent operating area north-east of Samarra," 95 km north of Baghdad."

from

here.


16 Mar 06 - 05:55 PM (#1695554)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Sorcha

Because I don't do political threads????


16 Mar 06 - 06:00 PM (#1695556)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: number 6

Operation Swarmer .... devised to distract attention from Bush, big military public relations maneaver ... unfortuantely the troops are the pawns.

Anyway ... what a way to bring democracy to Iraq, keep bombing the hell out of them.

sIx


16 Mar 06 - 06:03 PM (#1695557)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: katlaughing

I have a terrible and sick feeling about this. I shall do all the work I know for Peace and an end to his insanity.


16 Mar 06 - 06:12 PM (#1695562)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Andy Jackson

I'm with sorcha on this one!!


16 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM (#1695564)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Azizi

I agree. Bombing a country to smithereens is an insane way to bring peace & democracy to that country.

What happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?


16 Mar 06 - 06:16 PM (#1695565)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

What comes after shock, awe...

'Aw Gee!'??

Anyway all the trouble-making hypothetical pontificators are over in the Iran threads now - Even Bush wants us to be 'moving on' you know...


16 Mar 06 - 06:19 PM (#1695568)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

Better link here, I hope.


16 Mar 06 - 06:20 PM (#1695569)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: CarolC

I guess I'm not surprised. Bush's approval numbers needed a bit of a boost.


16 Mar 06 - 06:29 PM (#1695578)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

It will be interesting to see poll results in a few days. And what Congress has to say. Wonder if it was a 'worthwhile' military mission or a trial balloon to see what Americans think?


16 Mar 06 - 06:32 PM (#1695580)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

What happened to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?


It vanished as soon as George troubleyou had destroyed their capability to do unto him Azizi.

When God gave him teeth, he ruined a perfectly good arsehole.

Don T.


16 Mar 06 - 06:49 PM (#1695597)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: number 6

I reiterate .. unfortunately the troops and the citizens of Iraq are the pawns.

sIx


16 Mar 06 - 07:10 PM (#1695616)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Funny. I seem to remember the last 'bomb the crap out of them' publicity stunt is still continuing to have negative feedback. as evidenced in the stepped up insurgency still going on.

"When will they ever learn?"


16 Mar 06 - 07:10 PM (#1695618)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ebbie

He's probably looking forward to saying 'Mission Accomplished'. Again.

You know, I'm not all that keen any more on the kind of representative government that we have in the USA. We need a non-violent way of changing our government faster than every four years.


16 Mar 06 - 07:12 PM (#1695623)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Azizi

See this quote from the dailykos dairy-"Bombs Away -- edited}
by Maryscott OConnor {Thu Mar 16, 2006} :

"See no evil, feel no evil.
One of the biggest reasons people in this country don't identify with the suffering of people in other countries - esp. countries and peoples we happen to be bombing - is that they (U.S. citizens) are kept hermetically sealed from our military's actions. Our corporate media self-censors, so no one ever sees the bloody, disatrous, and unspeakable results of our bombs. The inevitable result is that body counts and "casualties" are nothing more than a number in most peoples' minds.

by Oaktown Girl on Thu Mar 16, 2006 "

-snip-

That dairy contains graphic photographs of injuried Iraqis as well as more than 400 comments.

To read it, click HERE


16 Mar 06 - 07:14 PM (#1695625)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: John MacKenzie

You need a fairer more open and honest way of running the elections too.
You also want to put a cap on political expenditure on election campaigns, so that it's not the best funded who get elected, but the best qualified.
As for Iraq well, I'm all Iraqed out.
Giok


16 Mar 06 - 08:26 PM (#1695679)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

"As for Iraq well, I'm all Iraqed out" That's my worry Giok. That people are becoming Iraq'd out.
They are done worrying altogther about Afghanistan and already refocusing on Iran.
I read last week that 85% of the Troops in Iraq still think that Saddam Insane was involved in the 9/11 attacks!

The White House issued their National Security Strategy today. Not what I would call a good read!
Definetly not for the faint hearted. It is a total rejection of the criticism and doubts rasied by many and filled with the arrogance that we have come to expect from this White House.
"Stay the F'n course" is the WARcry and "pre-emptive" is another on top of the Bushspeak list.

Who next is my question...as I said back when Bush got back in, a lot can happen in 4 years. A lot has happened and it's not good, not good at all and there are still 2 years of those 4 left. Worrying, frightening to think just how much more damage can be done under the torn and meaningless banner which reads Defending America

The "strike' today was an propaganda move.
A spit directly into the face of 62% of Americans that think this President's attitude and actions in Iraq (and in many other areas of this Administration's Foreign Policy) are simply wrong!

I believe no matter what Americans or any other World Citizens think is of a little importance to this Administration as they are not in the Business of working for the good of the American People or for the good of any other People around the World. They are simply in Business.

So to all those people who stepped up to the Diebold machine and choose George this one is for you. How do you feel about George now? If possible and without the usual blahblah, can any of you give some meaningful HOPE and assurance that all will be well here and that every Human Being that has willingly given or lost their Life due to the actions and policies of this Administration did not die for a lie! I, for one, would sure appreciate reading a post like that right now. I really would.

I don't usually get into these political threads but I have to say that, F*** me, I am so angry tonight and I am tired of being treated like a moron by morons who think that somehow I and many others cannot see through this crap.
How dumb do these arrogant bastards in this administration think people are!!
Yeah George "Mission Accomplished", Mission Impossible more like!!


16 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM (#1695690)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: CarolC

I reiterate .. unfortunately the troops and the citizens of Iraq are the pawns.

Yes, this is true.


16 Mar 06 - 08:40 PM (#1695697)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

"I reiterate .. unfortunately the troops and the citizens of Iraq are the pawns."


As are the citizens of America it would seem.


16 Mar 06 - 08:44 PM (#1695699)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

War it is.


16 Mar 06 - 09:07 PM (#1695715)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,dianavan

30,000 civilian deaths since the invasion of Iraq. Why?

How many insurgents have they actually killed?

The latest assault seems to have resulted in the capture of one man suspected of supporting Al qaeda.

The cost of this?

Four to eleven civilians depending on who's telling the story and plenty of U.S. tax dollars. Seems a pretty high price for one captured 'enemy'. Why do they have to bomb indiscriminately? Seems to me that police action would have done the job without so much destruction.

What is the point of such an air strike?

I think May 1st would be a good day to just stop contributing to this war machine. People should walk off the job and protest in the streets. Refuse to go back to work until the war is over. Hit them in the pocket book and help your neighbors in need.

I think a little personal sacrifice from U.S. citizens and their allies might be in order.


16 Mar 06 - 09:09 PM (#1695719)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

Is there any chance that Congress can pull in the reins?


16 Mar 06 - 09:28 PM (#1695726)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

'"More than 1,500 Iraqi and Coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, and more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation," the US military said in a statement about the attack designed to "clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra," 95 km north of Baghdad.

The military said the operation was expected to continue over several days against insurgent targets in Salahuddin province, where Samarra is a key city.'

from

here.


16 Mar 06 - 10:43 PM (#1695764)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

What's interesting is that it may distract all right--but distracting from Bush's 34% approval rating is not its only appeal to him. It will also distract from something much more important--polls are after all just snapshots--the next will be different-- and can be heavily influenced by wording.

Far more important than the current "Aw gee" campaign (tip of the hat to Robin) -- or whatever W calls it-- is the fact that hardly any progress is being made towards a "unity government" in Iraq--and that's what Bush has hung his presidency on. No matter how many "insurgents" are killed, it won't help Bush unless a stable Iraq government results--and soon--before the sorely tried patience of the US public is gone.

But the Kurds have never wanted to be part of Iraq--ever since the "birth" of Iraq, a jerry-built structure put together in 1921--not, as some think, a civilization thousands of years old. Churchill brought the Kurds (unwillingly) into Iraq, at the request of the imported leader (from Arabia!)--to try to balance the Shiite majority. The Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. have nothing to do with modern Iraq except as tourist draws and possible sources of propaganda (a la Mussolini and the Romans). Both the Kurds and the Shiites would be happy to control their own sections of Iraq--and the oil that goes with them. The Kurds are already doing deals with international oil companies--and not consulting the "Iraq government". Their de facto independence would be helped even more with a census and referendum in Kirkuk--which is in the constitution.

That would leave the Sunnis in central Iraq (but also Baghdad with its boiling cauldron of rivalries) out of luck--very little oil in central Iraq.

I understand the constitution also states that while income from current oil deposits is to be divided on a per capita basis among all Iraqis, new deposits will be the property of the province where found. Again, bad luck for the Sunnis--the Sunni minority, who ruled the majority for several decades.

As a result, even after an acceptable leader is found --(the parliamentary session today lasted 40 minutes, then adjourned until further notice)--either the constitution must be changed drastically or the insurgency will likely have a bottomless pool of recruits.

It will be a long road to stability in Iraq--if they ever get there--a breakup is at least as likely.

This attack is just a smokescreen for the continuing impasse.


17 Mar 06 - 01:11 AM (#1695843)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

"What is the point of such an air strike?"

Uses up the munitions, which have to be replaced. The weapons manufacturers are laughing all the way to the Rivera.


17 Mar 06 - 02:39 AM (#1695865)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

It's a funny thing but I have just been watching this being reported by CNN's Nic Robertson(Senior International Correspondent) live from the area.

His report stated that unlike previous cordon and search operations this one was targeting specific sites, six isolated farms to date. The operation was instigated and planned by Iraqi forces with US forces providing support. 48 people had been arrrested, of which 17 have been released, the remaining 31 have been detained. At these farms caches of weapons, detonators, timing devices, explosives and high powered cordless telephones have been seized. He also very clearly stated that these swoop and search operations had met NO resistance and that as of a few minutes ago there had been NO casualties.

Right now that as a report of what is happening is all well and good. I have no reason to believe that Nic Robertson is lying, he is after all CNN's senior man on the spot and his job is to report what he sees. Now what about the presentation of the report.

Nic Robertson's audio report was presented as a sort of voice-over to video coverage of what appeared to be the initial stages of the assault on Falluja. For almost the entire length of the report any viewer was confronted with nightime footage of what was a fairly intensive fire fight in a location that was clearly a built up urban area. Now why was this done? remember the voice you are listening to is telling you NO resistance, NO casualties, that specific isolated farms were being targeted. I'd certainly like to ask CNN what they were playing at, and can clearly see why those posting to this thread above believe that people are getting the crap bombed out of them - According to Nic Robertson, that is simply not happening.

Almost immediately after this report as a follow on Nic was back on air, with coverage showing troops being flown into the area, the bulk of the aircraft were shown as being transport helicopters, Chinooks and Black Hawks. He reported seeing Chinook helicopters on the ground right next to the targeted farms, now that you most certainly do not do if you are under fire, and it tends to support the content of his earlier broadcast.


17 Mar 06 - 05:23 AM (#1695926)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Azizi

It takes a lot of chuzpah to use the four words "all well and good" to describe anything going on with the Iraq "war"


17 Mar 06 - 09:39 AM (#1696086)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce

Teribus,

There are those here who do not feel that the people who blew up the Dome are proper targets for arrest.


17 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM (#1696088)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Bee-dubya-ell

So it turns out that "the biggest air strike since 'Shock and Awe'" consists of using about 50 helicopters to ferry ground troops in. The 'copters themselves haven't fired a shot and the guys on the ground haven't been doing much either.

So who decided to bill this thing as "the biggest air strike since 'Shock and Awe'"? And why? Is the entire world supposed to stand in awe of the U.S. Air Force's ability to provide air taxi service?


17 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM (#1696167)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

That would seem to be the Propaganda Bee-dubya-ell
That's what gets to me personally. That there is an assumption that the US is full of numb nuts ready to wave the flag and change their minds about the US policies in Iraq based on anything now which alludes to Bush being rough and tough and mighty and staying the course...but Operation Swarmer!! Please.
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'

Hype...total and utter Hype.

Shock and Awe....hardly that, thank goodness.
Mock and Withdraw... more like.


17 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM (#1696360)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Kaleea

All this time has gone by, billions & billions of $$, countless lives lost--but only once did I hear anything about Music in Iraq. That was on "Sunday Morning" the CBS show. It was a piece about what remained of the orchestra in Baghdad. I have never seen or heard any reports of the peoples of Iraq and their traditional Music(s). I suppose the average USA tv viewer would not pay much attention? Nevertheless, wouldn't it be something to have Traditional Musicians from round the world making Music with Iraqui Musicians-& put it on tv & radio worldwide? Since the usual diplomacy hasn't worked yet, how about International Music Diplomats?


17 Mar 06 - 03:26 PM (#1696394)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

We should have done this 2 years ago instead of pussyfooting around.


17 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM (#1696452)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: McGrath of Harlow

If there's really "no resistance" that would rather suggest that the US has targetted the wrong farms, ones where there in fact are no enemy fighters. It wouldn't be the first time. Only a couple of days ago the was an "incident" described here where 11 civilians were killed, five of them children, one six months old, were killed in an airstrike.

If this time they have actually identified the right target, "no resistance" would very likely imply that word of the attack was leaked in advance by friends of the insurgents in the Iraq military.

Foreign armies just cannot win this kind of conflict - you'd think they'd know by now.


17 Mar 06 - 08:34 PM (#1696584)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: katlaughing

How Operation Swarmer fizzled


17 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM (#1696642)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: CarolC

It looks like this was the real reason for the "air strike"...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060317/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Bush needs US voters to believe the troops will be coming home soon.


17 Mar 06 - 11:10 PM (#1696649)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

Taken from Kat's Link:

"Before loading up into the helicopters for a return trip to Baghdad, Iraqi and American soldiers and some reporters helped themselves to the woman's freshly baked bread, tearing bits off and chewing it as they wandered among the cows. For most of them, it was the only thing worthwhile they'd found all day."

It would appear that Bush missed a photo op which would have allowed him to get his 'Flight suit' on again and descend into the hub of a dangerous Iraqi Insurgent strong hold and address the assembled (flown in special) Troops on the Ground and reporters ( also flown in special) and to be heard by all assembled to utter yet more immortal words straight from the mouth of the Commander in Chief (of the Operation formally known as 'Iraqi freedom')....."Kitchen! I'm famished!"

"Don't believe the hype - its a sequel"...a line from the lyrics of "Don't believe the Hype" by (the aptly named in this case named) 'Public Enemy'


....and it seems that the Bush administration now know that sequels rarely get the same response as the original Movie. In this case '4 Long years II '..is a flop at the American and International Box Offices.

I give it a Thumbs down.


17 Mar 06 - 11:15 PM (#1696652)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Best comment I saw on SBS - we get the PBS News Hours on replay here - was a a man in a military uniform
"Consider it a live fire training exercise for the new Iraqui Troops"....


17 Mar 06 - 11:20 PM (#1696655)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Idea for a political cartoon

"Burying the hatchet in Iraq"

A circle of politicians each holding onto a hatchet buried in the back of the guy in front...


17 Mar 06 - 11:22 PM (#1696656)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Come to think of it, it's not all that special, it could apply to the Labour Party in Australia too...


17 Mar 06 - 11:32 PM (#1696661)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: katlaughing

Good take, Jude!


18 Mar 06 - 06:42 AM (#1696790)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

From Kat's link that the TIME Online had Headlined as "How Operation Swarmer Fizzled" the reader can extract the following:

- The operation was the largest air assault since 2003.

- The article explains that the media, like most on this forum judging from the earlier posts to this thread do not know the difference in terminology between "Air Strike" and "Air Assault"

- The results of the operation "netted 48 suspected insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released" - Now that is one way of putting it, another is to say that the operation netted 48, of which 31 have been detained - that is roughly 65% of those found in the six farms targetted.

- The article implies that as there were no shots fired, no resistance and no casualties that the operation was a flop. Even MGOH seems to be of that opinion. Here are a couple of Kevinesque quotes:

"If there's really "no resistance" that would rather suggest that the US has targetted the wrong farms, ones where there in fact are no enemy fighters"

"If this time they have actually identified the right target, "no resistance" would very likely imply that word of the attack was leaked in advance by friends of the insurgents in the Iraq military."

In both cases Kevin it indicates the complete and utter opposite of that which you contend.

In actual fact the operation seems to have been highly successful exactly for reasons that there were - No casualties - No resistance - Nobody hurt - 31 suspected terrorists detained - The operation was mounted at the instigation of the Iraqi Security Forces acting on information received from the Iraqi civilians living in the area - The "wrong farms" were not targeted, the forces conducting the operation found weapons, explosives timing devices, detonators, none of which can now harm innocent Iraqi citizens - According to the article, the airlift (1500 personnel) doubled the population of the remote area, 300 personal weapons seized means that one in five were armed, of the 1500 people living in the area we can roughly estimate that 500 would be children, 500 would be women and 500 would be men (I know these are very rough assumptions but I take it that you get the drift of where this is leading). 300 personal weapons is one hell of a percentage of what could be described as "likely" terrorist material in an area so sparsely populated.

Sorry TIME Online, I do not believe for one minute that Operation Swarmer Fizzled, resounding success more like, now like CNN, why don't you, TIME Online, just report it as such?

I sincerely hope the Journalists enjoyed their freshly baked bread, I also hope that they paid for it.


18 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM (#1696801)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Well, you can be happier now, Teribus, on tonight's news I heard that one US army personnel was killed - now surely an even better resounding success - definitely proved that there was combat of some sort. Definitely a 'live fire exercise' then.


18 Mar 06 - 07:21 AM (#1696812)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

"one in five were armed"

You sure they didn't take a left turn at Albuquerque and end up in Texas instead?


18 Mar 06 - 07:28 AM (#1696819)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

One that believes the "Hype" I see.

"resounding success more like"

"- No casualties - No resistance - Nobody hurt "...Really, well that's a relief because that is not what I have heard/read and it would seem that these three terms can mean diffrent things depending on where your perspective is coming from.

It would seem that I need to re-read the link and the many other sources I have been reading over the last few days. Some of the number crunching I see above me is frankly amazing!
"The largest Air ASSAULT since 2003.."
mmmm.
So when it suits the purposes of Propaganda it is perfectly acceptable to allude to the events in the air over Iraq in 2003 but it is unacceptable for the press, or anyone else for that matter, to point out that this particular Fiasco was, thankfully, absolutely nothing like the events of 2003, absolutely nothing like them.

Unlike the administration's Fiscal Advisors, it's supporters seem to make better use of a calculator however. I see some great number crunching.

"I sincerely hope the Journalists enjoyed their freshly baked bread, I also hope that they paid for it."

Actually I hope that the Commanders of 'Operation Delusional' paid the Woman for her Bread, after all those were the people who asked Reporters to join them on the 'Daytrip', in fact I hope the reporters got paid for their time and enjoyed what seems to be to all intents and purposes a very bland 'packed Lunch' not even the mention of a soft Drink, Bottle of Spring water or fresh fruit in the Time article.

The Woman baking the bread however I am sure offered little resistance when approached for some of her baking. I know if I was confronted by 1500 armed personnel that emerged from 50 helicopters in my back field I would give them the damn bread I was making for nothing personally, make no mistake about it.

31 Insurgents. No doubt a massive blow has been struck at the heart of the Insurgents core...!

Ah hype...it smells as sweet as baking bread when it reaches the ears of the desperately seeking justification.


18 Mar 06 - 07:53 AM (#1696830)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

"Ah hype...it smells as sweet as baking bread when it reaches the *ears* of the desperately seeking justification"
That should have read *Noses* shouldn't it!
Not to worry, no actual Ears or Noses were harmed in the writing of my sentence.


18 Mar 06 - 10:40 AM (#1696926)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

As I said earlier, it's all a-- very expensive--sideshow. The real action (or inaction, now) is in the parliament. Will there--ever--be a stable "unity" government? And even more important, will the constitution be changed to more suit the Sunnis? That's the only way to defuse the insurgency. Promises of such amendments are the main reason Sunni leaders were willing to support the December elections. Now leaders of the other factions are balking at any substantive changes.

The Sunnis are not blind--they know that the constitution as it stands provides for a path to semi-autonomy for any region--including control over oil. If that happens, the Sunnis are the big losers. If Sunnis come to the conclusion that the changes they seek are out of the question, the insurgency will benefit---bigtime.


18 Mar 06 - 11:12 AM (#1696954)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: van lingle

Yep, Bush had to do something to stop the bleeding (in the polls) and having a bunch of Iraqi soldiers running around in the sand next to US Army soldiers flashed across the evening news and then bringing on a General who recently declared Iraq as near to a civil war as it had ever been redeem himself by praising the Iraqi military invovlment is a pretty small band aid. I can hear Claude Rains saying "Roundup the usual suspects!" vl


18 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM (#1697356)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

Teribus:

His report stated that unlike previous cordon and search operations this one was targeting specific sites,...

OIC. Up to now we'd been bombing indiscriminately (according to you). My, that gives me the warm fuzzies. What does it do to you, Teribus? Make your putter flutter?

Cheers,


18 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM (#1697360)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

Teribus:

48 people had been arrrested, of which 17 have been released, the remaining 31 have been detained....

Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?

At these farms caches of weapons, detonators, timing devices, explosives and high powered cordless telephones have been seized....

Say it ain't so, Teribus. They're found "high powered cordless telephones" on a farm???

... He also very clearly stated that these swoop and search operations had met NO resistance and that as of a few minutes ago there had been NO casualties.

"No resistance and no casualties"? Guess the pictures of those 11 dead, women and children included, were PhotoShopped by Osama himself, eh?

Right now that as a report of what is happening is all well and good....

Oh, yes, we can trust an account of one embedded eyewitness to represent the entire story nationwide.

... I have no reason to believe that Nic Robertson is lying, he is after all CNN's senior man on the spot and his job is to report what he sees.

Strangely enough, you, Teribus, also see no reason to believe that Dubya is lying ... so isn't this damning with faint praise?

Cheers,


19 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM (#1697588)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

Arne - 18 Mar 06 - 10:56 PM

"No resistance and no casualties"? Guess the pictures of those 11 dead, women and children included, were PhotoShopped by Osama himself, eh?"

Eh Arne, did you read MGOH's link?? Don't think you did otherwise like any reasonably intelligent person with even the most challenged powers of deduction you would have noted that the incident that was being referred to:

- Occured two days BEFORE the start of the operation under discussion in this thread

- Was in a different part of Iraq.

Please do try and keep up.


19 Mar 06 - 07:19 AM (#1697598)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Attacking someone new before you even answered your last lot of critics, eh?

And so thus I consider that I won our last exchange then Mr T! :-)


19 Mar 06 - 07:27 AM (#1697600)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

"And so thus I consider that I won our last exchange then Mr T! :-)"

Wasn't aware that we'd had any sort of "exchange" Foolstroupe, but whatever, if it makes you happy, dig out.


20 Mar 06 - 07:09 AM (#1698475)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce

Arne,

"Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?"

Sorry, that is what the people YOU are supporting are doing...


20 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM (#1698747)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

BeardedBruce:

[Arne]: "Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?"

Sorry, that is what the people YOU are supporting are doing...

Care to support your slanderous accustation here, Bruce? I have done no such thing. Or will you take it back....

In the meanwhile, IC that Teribus thinks that everything over there in Iraq is just wine and roses. Apparently he hasn't been listening to his Fuhr... -- umm, sorry, "master" -- lately.

See here and here and here anonanonanonanon.....

Cheers,


20 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM (#1698816)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce

Arne,

I have read most, if not all of your posts. I have never seen ANY criticsm of the actions of ANY of those opposing coalition forces, regardless of what they have done, but I have noticed a number of comments about the actions of the US- Mostly without any reference to the facts.


I will, of course, eagerly await your documentation of when you have EVER applied the same standard to judgement of the actions of the terrorists as you have to the coalition forces.


20 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM (#1698833)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce

At these farms caches of weapons, detonators, timing devices, explosives and high powered cordless telephones have been seized....



High powered cordless telephones have been found as the detonating control source for those IEDs.

Even YOU, Arne, should have some concern over the other items listed.


20 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM (#1698885)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

BB,

According to the comments made by some on this thread it would have been far more preferable for those weapons and explosives to have remained in the hands of the insurgents, it would have been far better if the 60 odd now in custody were still at liberty to use those weapons and those explosives on their fellow countrymen.

The fact that all this has been accomplished without any casualties is a held up as a case for derision and denigration. The fact that the farms were identified and reported to the Iraqi Security Forces by locals who did not want these terrorists living amongst them is of absolutely no significance.

Why, you might ask. Because it doesn't suit their arguement, they couldn't give two figs for Iraq or it's people, they never have. All they wish for is a chance to yell, "I told you so" at the current US Administration, irrespective of consequence their dearest wish would seem to be to see failure in Iraq - Well don't worry folks its not going to happen, the Iraqi people will see to that.


20 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM (#1698888)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

Just popped by to see how everyone's doing. Have a nice day.


20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM (#1698891)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce

T,

I have to disagree with you. I think that there ARE those here who care about human life- I just do not think that they have looked at the facts of the situation, but react "against" any action that they do not approve of ( ie, any of those by the coalition forces).

I doubt if many of them really support the blowing up of the Samarra dome, nor the execution style killings now happening in Bagdad- they just think that if the US were not there, they could ignore it a lot easier, like they ignore the situation in Sudan and elsewhere, where far more are dying, but the US press does not make them think about it.


20 Mar 06 - 03:05 PM (#1698902)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: beardedbruce

"TIKRIT, Iraq – A total of 11 caches have been discovered and more than 60 suspected insurgents detained as Operation Swarmer continued for a third day March 18.

Coalition Forces did encounter an IED along one of the roads in the area today and one vehicle was damaged. No troops were injured in the attack.

As of 6 p.m., Iraqi time, March 18, there had been no Iraqi or Coalition casualties directly associated with Operation Swarmer.

As Iraqi Army troops and their Coalition partners continue to clear the objective area northeast of Samarra, enemy caches captured thus far have yielded significant amounts of weapons and IED-making materials.

Included in the finds were the following munitions:

- 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.

In addition to the weapons and munitions, terrorist training publications, Iraqi Army uniforms and videos have been recovered. The video footage portrayed U.S. troop locations in Iraq, the rigging and detonation of a car bomb, a suicide bomber and equipment taken from Iraqi Police.

Operation Swarmer is expected to continue for the next 24-48 hours at a minimum as Iraqi and Coalition Forces exploit cache sites and search all structures in the area."





So, Arne, I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world...


20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM (#1699090)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble and go for the easy targets - Baghdad and statues etc. Now what is happening is a 'mop up' operation that they have taken 3 years to get around to, and should have been on from the very beginning. If there would have been more troops, they might have been able to do so.

"I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world... "

You don't use hand grenaged for fishing in Texas?


20 Mar 06 - 07:00 PM (#1699093)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

That's overkill, Foolestroupe. Half stick of dynamite works jus' fine.


20 Mar 06 - 10:29 PM (#1699223)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

Teribus (AKA Mr. Pollyanna)---


"Because it doesn't suit their arguement (sic), they couldn't give two figs for Iraq or it's (sic) people".

"Their dearest wish would seem to be failure in Iraq"--good evasion, there, with your "would seem"--to avoid outright slander.

Because, as usual, you're dead wrong. Mudcatters opposing Bush's war in Iraq are just a little more observant and realistic than you.

"Failure" in Iraq. Fascinating that you somehow haven't found time to define "success" in Iraq.

"The Iraqi people will see to that" (success in Iraq). Which ones? The Sunnis killing Shiites, the Shiites killing Sunnis, or the Kurds who want nothing to do with "Iraq"?

Face it--you have no more idea of the future of Iraq than anybody else--and probably less than some. As I've said several times, it all hinges on whether the Sunnis feel part of the government or not--specifically if their proposed amendments to the constitution
are accepted. If they are not, look for the civil war to expand dramatically--with the "Coalition" forces in the middle, with no role to play except as occupation troops (not really wanted by any side)--therefore as targets.

But US pressure on this point will do nothing but raise the hackles of the Shiites--who agree with you that it's payback time. Do I need to cite you chapter and verse from your own holy writings? (on another thread).

Or perhaps you prefer this: Some Sunni leaders would like Sunni prisoners turned over to US Marines. The Shiite leaders of the present government are not big fans of this idea. So, if we do it, we then alienate the Shiites--the majority. A brilliant move.

As I said earlier, wake up.


21 Mar 06 - 01:32 AM (#1699233)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

BeardedBruce:
[Arne]: "Are they going to be next week's "31 bound, naked Iraqis were found shot in the back of the head in a shallow grave" headline?"

Sorry, that is what the people YOU are supporting are doing...

Care to support your slanderous accustation here, Bruce? I have done no such thing. Or will you take it back....

I have read most, if not all of your posts. I have never seen ANY criticsm of the actions of ANY of those opposing coalition forces, regardless of what they have done, but I have noticed a number of comments about the actions of the US- Mostly without any reference to the facts.

Oh, really??? Better titrate the Haldol up a notch, Bruce. My criticisms have been of the maladministration, you know, the folks on top that have ordered and/or excused and whitewashed the renditions, the tortures, the wiretapping, and the other sundry violations of both national and international law and of human decency. I have never made a criticism of the U.S. soldiers themselves for their job (although there are certainly individuals that have gone "above and beyond the call of duty", not mentioning names like "England", "Granger", et.al., who may have been singled out by me for their poor conduct). I defy you to find a single comment where I did such a thing.

But, dear Brucie, I'd note that this is non-responsive to my point. You were seemingly claiming that I've "support[ed]" murderers, so let's not change the subject with your usual distractions and "red herrings" here, OK? While you may claim that it is my duty, honour-bound, to denounce every murderer if I should ever mention even one (a point which you are certainly not taking to heart yourself, so your faux outrage here is rather hypocritical), that is absurd ... not to mention impractical. Some go without saying, being simply so outrageous, and so undisputedly outragerous, such as the murder of Tom Fox, so as to make a repetition superfluous. But I'd note that failure to mention terrorist murders does not in itself become actual "support[]" for the murderers. That's even more absurd.

Also, we have the fact that while we are free to denounce the behaviour of anyone we feel like, it is only our own behaviour that we can in fact control. Thus, commenting on the viciousness of the Iraqi extremists may make us feel holy, but ain't gonna change anything. But if we're silent while our gummint engages in similar behaviour (or condones or winks at it when done by the Iraqi "security forces" we've helped construct and "train"), then we in fact have committed a bit of the sin of "aiding and abetting", and we ought to hold ourselves accountable for it. We're (supposedly) "better" than the terraists, you know....

So, once again, where have I supported murder, or even murderers, of any kind for such type of behaviour? If you can't find an example, you really should apologise, you know.... That would be the Christian thing to do, now.

Cheers,


21 Mar 06 - 01:36 AM (#1699234)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

The fact that the farms were identified and reported to the Iraqi Security Forces by locals who did not want these terrorists living amongst them is of absolutely no significance.

Hmmmm. Wonder who gets the farms now.....

Cheers,


21 Mar 06 - 01:46 AM (#1699236)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

Teribus:

So, Arne, I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world...

Oh, my. I'm sorry. Saw Dick "GFY" Cheney over the weekend, and he assured us that things were just hunky-dory. So if they say they're finding all these arms and stuff, and rounding up terraists left and right, all without a shot(!?!?!), why, who am I to doubt Fearless Leader (Who Had Other Priorities Than Vietnam)? And no problem that they only have a couple thousand tons of explosives and arms of all kinds left to find after they left the dumps unguarded in the wonderful Three Week War to "Mission Accomplished"....

Yep, days of wine and roses, and I'll buy you a ticket to go see the wondrous Hanging Gardens ASAP, Teribus. Hear tell the U.S. occupation has restored them to pristine state, and they're just waiting for the tourist influx....

Cheers,


21 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM (#1699519)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

Foolestroupe - 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM

Hells teeth Foolestroupe, just where are you getting your information.

First of all you're reading about casualties that still don't exist as far as this operation is concerned:
"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"
So come on Foolestoupe go and check and tell us how many people have been killed in relation to Operation Swarmer.

And now this load of complete and utter rubbish:

"When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble and go for the easy targets - Baghdad and statues etc. Now what is happening is a 'mop up' operation that they have taken 3 years to get around to, and should have been on from the very beginning. If there would have been more troops, they might have been able to do so."

Eh? Foolestroupe go and take a look at a Map of Iraq. Might prove rather edifying for you. But just to give you some pointers:
- US Forces attacked from where? Kuwait right? South-East of Baghdad.
- The area this operation is taking place in is where in relation to Baghdad Foolestroupe? I believe that you will find that it lies to the NORTH of Baghdad. So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad to get to Baghdad and all those "easy targets"? I know that you must have an answer, you wouldn't have come out with that crap if you hadn't - I just don't think that it will be credible.

Oddly enough it was not more troops that were needed back in March 2003, to settle much of what has become known as the Sunni triangle and to cut off the Syrian border, what was needed was Turkey's co-operation with regard to placement of US Troops prior to the invasion.

Arne - 21 Mar 06 - 01:46 AM

"Teribus:

So, Arne, I guess this is just normal farming equipment in your part of the world..."

As I told you before my little viking, do try and keep up that quote you attribute to me - go and check who actually did say it.

Oh and while you are about it Arne, just tell everyone when and where I ever stated that the Coalition Forces had bombed anywhere indiscriminately.

Mark you if the following is an example of your logic, it only backs up what I have always contended with regard to your powers of comprehension of the english language:

Arne - 18 Mar 06 - 10:46 PM

Teribus:

"His report stated that unlike previous cordon and search operations this one was targeting specific sites,..." (Hear I was talking about Nic Robertson's report on CNN)

OIC. Up to now we'd been bombing indiscriminately (according to you)."

You see Arne, even after it had been explained to world and his dog that the media had completely jumped the gun on this story with regard to "Air Assault" versus "Air Strike" and it had become very clear that no shots had been fired. You persist with what your preconceived ideas would like to believe was happening:
Now here's a "Heads Up" on Operation Swarmer
- No bombs, no shooting, indiscriminate or otherwise.
- Nobody killed or wounded.
- "targeting" something does not necessarily mean you are shooting at it, or bombing it, it can even have a completely peaceful connotation, PR, Advertising and Recruitment Agencies, Radio and Television companies do it all the time.
- "cordon and search operations" Arne go and look up what the term means. Because you patently don't have a clue.

Oh and Ron, the Sunni Arabs in Iraq have only to realise one thing - they don't run it any more, and demographically it is hardly likely that they ever will again. They either embrace the process which gives them a damn sight more of a chance than they ever gave the majority of their fellow citizens previously - or they are going to marginalise themselves and die.


21 Mar 06 - 07:25 PM (#1699730)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Earned your pay today Mr T?


21 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM (#1699746)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

"So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad"

I seem to remember from the non-stop 24 hour TV coverage that troops were landed north and west of Baghdad too matie! Maybe one of us is holding the map upside down... And don't forget that our SAS guys were sent in too - we Aussies haven't... and they DEFINITELY bypassed any serious resistance - no bloody choice for a handful of 2 man teams...

Damn, Mr T! It seems that The News Hour were robbed when they had that 'World Class Military Expert' on the other day who said "When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble "! :-) You should tell them, perhaps... :-)

You have thoroughly discredited yourself Mr T. And you are definitely more ignorant that even you believe other are. I won't say stupid - that would be insulting!


21 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM (#1699833)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

Teribus:

Oh and while you are about it Arne, just tell everyone when and where I ever stated that the Coalition Forces had bombed anywhere indiscriminately.

And:

Now here's a "Heads Up" on Operation Swarmer
- No bombs, no shooting, indiscriminate or otherwise.


Yep, "Operation Photo-Op" was a great success. Kind of like the turkee that Dubya handed out a couple years ago. All for show while the troops were simply shoveled the same ol' Halliburton crap (but hopefully they didn't use the tainted food for the Thanksgiving repast).

But there's been plenty of indiscriminate bombing and shooting; looks like even the USMC will have to look into the latest civilian killings....

You're right, though, Teribus. You limited your comments WRT "Operation Propaganda" to a curious situation (for Iraq, particularly), where there was no shooting (at least reportedly), and pointed out that -- voila! -- there was no "indiscriminate shooting". Alors! That's simply amazing, Teribus, and certainly worthy of note. Can you say the same about the contemporary cases where there was shooting (such as the USMC incident)? Or were those deaths quite intentional?

Cheers,


21 Mar 06 - 10:37 PM (#1699835)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: number 6

Why no new Iraqi thread .... cause it's the same old shit.

Post a new one when it's over.

sIx


21 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM (#1699855)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

Tut tut, Teribus, your ignorance (not to say poor reading skills) is showing.

In fact, you are not even aware of what your heroes, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair are saying about the issue of the Sunnis. In fact, the US ambassador is pushing for inclusion of Sunnis in the police force and the army--with marginal success to say the least-- and the government in general.

They are aware, even if you are not, that the insurgency draws most of its strength from disaffected Sunnis--not from the "foreign extremists" you are so fond of citing. Foreign elements are only too willing to exploit discontent, especially among Sunnis. But they need raw material--and with attitudes like yours, they get plenty of recruits. Just brilliant on your part. Good thing your impact on the situation is minimal, to say the least.

Once more--maybe eventually you'll understand--if the Sunnis don't think they are getting a fair shake from whatever Iraq government emerges--particularly on the issue of distribution of oil income-- support for the insurgency goes way up.

If this does not bother you, your tunnel vision has blinded you beyond reason--you'll have to turn in your badge as a foreign policy analyst--even though you sent in the right number of boxtops to get it.


22 Mar 06 - 03:59 PM (#1700479)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

Foolestroupe - 21 Mar 06 - 07:40 PM

"So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad"

Now why not complete it Foolestroupe -

So coming from the South-east Foolestroupe how do you manage to "by-pass" somewhere to the North of Baghdad, to get to Baghdad.

Your memory is faulty the main advances were the US Forces moving North-West out of Kuwait and the British moving West from the Al Faw peninsula. Special Units (note: Units not Forces) were deployed to the West of Iraq to prevent the blowing of a dam and to monitor and interrupt traffic along the highway to Jordan. The only force to move in North of Baghdad was well to the North-West. This group went in initially to clear an airstrip so that forces could be moved in to bolster up and supply the Kurdish forces there, they spent most of their time maintaining their positions and didn't move off their start lines until after Baghdad had fallen. This was mainly due to their lack of heavy weapons support. They relied heavily on air power to deter the Iraqi forces in front of them and it was during one of their air-strikes that BBC's John Simpson was injured and his cameraman and interpreter were killed.

If any SAS unit has to fight, they have screwed up mightily, or have been extremely unlucky - it is just not their job to do that - they are also normally in 4-man teams, although they could possibly split into two 2's if their task is target identification and illumination.

Wouldn't matter which way you're holding the map Foolestroupe if Baghdad is in the middle and the other two places are near as damn it diametrically opposite, you still can't start out from one of those points and by-pass the other to get to Baghdad.

News Hour's, 'World Class Military Expert' said what exactly, from the little you provide, he said, ""When the US military first moved in, they struck serious resistance in this area. They decided to 'bypass' the trouble." Now you have obviously assumed that when the US military first moved into this area was at the begining of the invasion, but that is not what News Hour's hired military expert was saying at all, was it. He doesn't say when the US military first moved into the area, neither does he state the make up of the formation that did move into the area first, neither does he state what that formation's mission was. Now if you were armed with all of those factors you just might possibly come up with the reason why that force decided to 'by-pass' the trouble they encountered.

Discredited myself Mr F, don't think so - Others like yourself, Arne and Alba definitely have. My original comment on joining this thread and the question that went with it centred round the marked variance of the verbal report and the televised images that accompanied that report. The 'usual suspects' originally were jumping up and down yelling about innocent Iraqi's being butchered by the evil forces of occupation, and when it was clearly pointed out and reported that there had been no casualties, the same 'usual suspects' start pouring scorn on what was, judging by the results, a very successful operation.

Ron, I am perfectly aware of what the British and American Governments and their leaders are saying about the inclusion of the Arab Sunni population of Iraq in the affairs of that country. I am perfectly aware of what the newly elected Iraqi members of Parliament are saying. All the Iraqi Arab Sunni's have to do is have faith enough to engage in that political process.

I am also not aware of my fondness for citing "foreign extremists" with regard to the current insurgency in Iraq. And at least the Iraqi Sunni Arabs living in the area encompassed by Operation Swarmer were disaffected enough with the Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists in their midst that they informed on them and pointed out their locations to the Iraqi Security Forces.

By the way Ron, have you got the names of those Air National Guard F-102A pilots yet?


23 Mar 06 - 06:58 AM (#1700836)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

"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...

"Now you have obviously assumed that when the US military first moved into this area was at the beginning of the invasion, but that is not what News Hour's hired military expert was saying at all, was it"

Which cleverly misdirects one away from the real question 'If the US Military KNEW (and public statements were made to that effect - of bypassing areas of fanatical resistance - while I was watching the multi-channel broadcast of the 'invasion' here) that they were bypassing areas of serious resistance, and also since many public statements have been made for the last 3 years that there were known areas of "seed grounds for terrorists", why was no attempt made to go there before right now, which coincides with released evidence of worsening public opinion'?
Because the White House was so incompetent that they honestly believed that it would all be a brief walkover, and that the public would not care, as long as the war could be portrayed as a great victory of US might, and that the '710' would be safe.

Picking at minor alleged faults of the opposing view is an old debating tactic which I was aware of while on the school debating team, even before I was an independent rep for mature & external students on the University Student Union.


"Discredited myself Mr F, don't think so - Others like yourself, Arne and Alba definitely have."

Glad to see you admit it - we certainly have discredited you... but you definitely outshine any of us at attempted misdirection and obfuscation. Doubtless you were one of those claiming that the leaping onto hovering helicopters from the US Embassy building in Vietnam was a 'tremendous victory for the free world'!!!


23 Mar 06 - 07:30 AM (#1700871)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

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.

J


23 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM (#1700962)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

Teribus--

Still holding on to your tunnel vision for dear life, eh? The Sunnis just have to be "realistic" and everything will be peaches and cream, right?

Correction-- for the n th time (You'd best send in your badge).

The Sunnis have to engage in the political process--AND the other parties have to be willing to guarantee them a larger share of the oil income than would accrue to them from just their oil-poor part of Iraq. (For some reason, you left out the last part). That is, Iraq under the constitution must be changed from an extremely loose federation to a tighter one.

Promise of such amendments was what enticed Sunni leaders to support the December elections, the results of which Cheney and other despicable propagandists (oops, I mean great statesmen) have been trumpeting to the skies ever since. As indeed have such brilliant commentators as yourself. Fascinating that neither Bush, Cheney nor any of his other toadies (nor even your good self) have mentioned this little condition.

Other factions are now balking at substantive changes to the constitution. If the promise, implicit or explicit, is not carried out, all bets are off. Nobody likes bait and switch.

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


23 Mar 06 - 11:58 AM (#1701099)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: DougR

Wow, Teribus, I admire your fortitude (to say nothing of your patience).

DougR


24 Mar 06 - 11:08 AM (#1701800)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

Doug--

Don't forget to compliment Teribus on his powers of logic and mastery of English also. As in "Fuck all absolutely nothing" (one of his classic responses)--which I had to admit was an unanswerable argument--though for a different reason than that of Sir Joseph Porter K.C.B.


24 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM (#1701830)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


24 Mar 06 - 11:47 AM (#1701839)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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.


24 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM (#1701858)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


24 Mar 06 - 04:00 PM (#1702009)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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.


24 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM (#1702019)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

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

J


24 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM (#1702216)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

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...


25 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM (#1702465)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


25 Mar 06 - 01:30 PM (#1702614)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST

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.


25 Mar 06 - 07:55 PM (#1702811)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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


25 Mar 06 - 08:55 PM (#1702845)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST

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.


25 Mar 06 - 08:57 PM (#1702847)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST

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.


26 Mar 06 - 05:09 AM (#1703009)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


26 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM (#1703049)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

"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 .... :-)


26 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM (#1703052)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

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.


26 Mar 06 - 01:59 PM (#1703257)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST

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.


26 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM (#1703299)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,dianavan

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.


26 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM (#1703416)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: michaelr

stereotypical uneducated ignorant narrow minded bullying fascist Yank

I protest this unwarranted insult as a lowly personal attack!









Terribus is not a Yank.


26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM (#1703547)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


26 Mar 06 - 11:40 PM (#1703548)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

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


26 Mar 06 - 11:56 PM (#1703553)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

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


27 Mar 06 - 12:03 AM (#1703558)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: michaelr

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


27 Mar 06 - 12:58 AM (#1703569)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST

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."


27 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM (#1703743)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

Where's Wally?


27 Mar 06 - 01:44 PM (#1703970)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


27 Mar 06 - 09:47 PM (#1704264)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,AR282

>>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.


27 Mar 06 - 10:28 PM (#1704289)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


28 Mar 06 - 12:00 AM (#1704346)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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".


28 Mar 06 - 01:25 AM (#1704363)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Little Hawk

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.


28 Mar 06 - 10:40 AM (#1704651)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


28 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM (#1704774)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

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


28 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM (#1705019)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

"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...


28 Mar 06 - 07:43 PM (#1705111)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

"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.


28 Mar 06 - 10:59 PM (#1705235)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


28 Mar 06 - 11:24 PM (#1705261)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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.


28 Mar 06 - 11:29 PM (#1705265)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

"Why no new Iraq thread?"

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


29 Mar 06 - 08:33 AM (#1705550)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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;


29 Mar 06 - 09:40 AM (#1705601)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Alba

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:)


29 Mar 06 - 11:01 PM (#1706212)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

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,


29 Mar 06 - 11:23 PM (#1706224)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Little Hawk

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.


29 Mar 06 - 11:26 PM (#1706229)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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.


30 Mar 06 - 02:22 AM (#1706318)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

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,


30 Mar 06 - 07:46 AM (#1706469)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Keith A of Hertford

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?


30 Mar 06 - 08:18 AM (#1706488)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: The Fooles Troupe

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...


30 Mar 06 - 01:06 PM (#1706771)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: GUEST,TIA

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


30 Mar 06 - 05:35 PM (#1706985)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Peace

Don't misunderestimate the depth of his thinking.


30 Mar 06 - 11:08 PM (#1707172)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Teribus

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.


30 Mar 06 - 11:23 PM (#1707178)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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.


30 Mar 06 - 11:27 PM (#1707182)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Ron Davies

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


31 Mar 06 - 01:39 AM (#1707273)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Arne

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,


31 Mar 06 - 01:45 AM (#1707275)
Subject: RE: BS: Why no new Iraq thread?
From: Little Hawk

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.