US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

I think there is little doubt who suffers from the 'compulsive fantasy' in this thread, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegation is at best your baseless opinion, and at worst your compulsive fantasy.

Try telling that to the ex chief constable of N Ireland Ronnie Flannagan, who has just been sent out to Basra to assess the degree to which British forces in Basra have "lost it".

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think there is little doubt who suffers from the 'compulsive fantasy' in this thread, Ican. ...

I agree! For example, since I have provided a preponderance of evidence to support my few allegations, and you have provided a preponderance of allegations to support your few evidences, I infer that you recognize that you are among those here who suffer from compulsive fantasies.

If my inference is correct, you may already be on the road to recovery from your compulsive fantasizing. If so, congratulations!

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegation is at best your baseless opinion, and at worst your compulsive fantasy.

Try telling that to the ex chief constable of N Ireland Ronnie Flannagan, who has just been sent out to Basra to assess the degree to which British forces in Basra have "lost it".

OK! N Ireland Ronnie Flannagan, listen up!

Provide EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY that Steve's allegation, "But thats only because the government of Iran doesnt want to cause much trouble just now," is not at best Steve's baseless opinion, and at worst Steve's compulsive fantasy.

0 Replies

I'm telling you Ican British forces have lost control in Basra. If Iran flexes a muscle, we run.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'm telling you Ican British forces have lost control in Basra. If Iran flexes a muscle, we run.

I'm telling you, Steve,
ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

If you have such evidence (i.e., real evidence, not just some opinion-article writer alleging the same thing), provide it, already! Then and only then will I think your allegation is valid.

0 Replies

From a blog:

British forces have handed over their main base in the city of Basra to the Iraqi military to allow it to take over the main security duties there.

Get that? The "Iraqi military" controls Basra. That must be the
one brigade that can stand on its own, I guess.

---

The handover by the British took place a week after riots broke out in the city - Iraq's second largest - after troops stormed a jail on September 19 where they believed two British soldiers had been taken after being arrested by Iraqi police. The raid sharply increased tensions between the British forces and Iraqis in the city.

British troops moved to a base 18 miles outside Basra to be able to intervene in a crisis.

It was the third southern city to be handed over to Iraqi forces in the space of a month following the US transfer of security control in the cities of Karbala and Najaf.

Scotsman

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

From a blog:

British forces have handed over their main base in the city of Basra to the Iraqi military to allow it to take over the main security duties there.

Get that? The "Iraqi military" controls Basra. That must be the
one brigade that can stand on its own, I guess.

I don't doubt this is true! But what has this got to do with whether the following is also true?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I'm telling you Ican British forces have lost control in Basra. If Iran flexes a muscle, we run.

I have been inferring from your, Steve's and others' many post's here since the Iraqis approved their new constitution, that you wanted the coalition in general and the USA in particular to get out of Iraq ASAP. Take over of Iraq's "main security duties there" by the Iraq military is a necessary step to our withdrawal. So what's your problem?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote:

The handover by the British took place a week after riots broke out in the city - Iraq's second largest - after troops stormed a jail on September 19 where they believed two British soldiers had been taken after being arrested by Iraqi police. The raid sharply increased tensions between the British forces and Iraqis in the city.

British troops moved to a base 18 miles outside Basra to be able to intervene in a crisis.

It was the third southern city to be handed over to Iraqi forces in the space of a month following the US transfer of security control in the cities of Karbala and Najaf.

Scotsman

I assume all that's true! What is your problem?

I can only guess! Confused

You want to be in position to criticize and heap scorn on Bush and his administration after the Iraqi December elections, regardless of how well Bush's plan works. If I'm right, that would really be cute! If Bush's plan to transfer Iraq's "main security duties there" to a competent Iraq military works poorly, you want to be in position to criticize and heap scorn on him for that. On the otherhand, if that part of Bush's plan works well, you want to be in position to criticize and heap scorn on him for not adequately solving the Iran problem at the same time. If I'm right, you all figure you've got Bush coming and going Laughing

If I'm right, you are forgetting something. The American voters are daily getting wise to your antics and are increasingly ignoring you critics and scorners of Bush. The only thing you really have going for you are the increasing number of Republicans, Bush included, who are abandoning Republican domestic doctrines and are switching to Democrat domestic doctrines: tax, spend, transfer wealth and buy votes. In fact, if these Republican abandoners keep it up, a lot of Republican voters will stay home or turn to symbolic "none-of-the-above candidates, and thereby ensure lots of Democrat election victories. Keep your fingers crossed! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Quote:

If I'm right, you are forgetting something. The American voters are daily getting wise to your antics and are increasingly ignoring you critics and scorners of Bush.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, this allegation is at best your baseless opinion, and at worst your compulsive fantasy.

The American people are many things, but 'wise' isn't one of them, and they certainly aren't moving further to the right at the moment re: Bush...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If I'm right, you are forgetting something. The American voters are daily getting wise to your antics and are increasingly ignoring you critics and scorners of Bush.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, this allegation is at best your baseless opinion, and at worst your compulsive fantasy.

It is my baseless opinion! I was up front about that when I wrote: {"I can only guess! Confused

"} at the beginning of my last two paragraphs.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The American people are many things, but 'wise' isn't one of them, and they certainly aren't moving further to the right at the moment re: Bush...

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, this allegation is at best your baseless opinion, and at worst your compulsive fantasy.

0 Replies

Aha!

Evidence of the American peoples lack of wisdom is found (in abundance) in an examination of our current actions, but I believe the 2004 presidential election stands pretty firm as a good example.

Evidence of their move away from Bush can be found here: www.pollingreport.com

Nice try tho

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Aha!

Evidence of the American peoples lack of wisdom is found (in abundance) in an examination of our current actions, but I believe the 2004 presidential election stands pretty firm as a good example.

Evidence of their move away from Bush can be found here: www.pollingreport.com

Nice try tho

That poll had to do with the preferred size of our troop removal from Iraq by the end of 2006. I prefer removing 100% of the coalition's troops as soon as the newly elected Iraqi government asks us to. I prefer them doing that by January 31, 2006, after they are for good reason convinced they can henceforth take care of their own security. But sorry, my preference is not influenced by anything Bush's critics and scorners have to say.

You do understand don't you? That preference poll has zero to do with my guess that

Quote:

The American voters are daily getting wise to your antics and are increasingly ignoring you critics and scorners of Bush.

I bet the Democrats can help the Republicans chances immensely by putting up that fool-fraud John Kerry for president again. I bet that will again get out the Republican vote with a passion. The sooner the Democrats do that the better. Kerry use to contradict himself and lie, speech to speech. I guess now he's doing that clause to clause. Anyday now, I guess, we will hear him doing that phrase to phrase.

0 Replies

icant wrote:
That poll had to do with the preferred size of our troop removal from Iraq by the end of 2006. I prefer removing 100% of the coalition's troops as soon as the newly elected Iraqi government asks us to. I prefer them doing that by January 31, 2006, after they are for good reason convinced they can henceforth take care of their own security.

icant also wrote that giving time frames for US pullout would give the insurgency critical information.

If icant believes that the insurgency will stop by January 31, 2006, he is misinformed about the insurgency and what qualifies as critical information for the insurgency.

0 Replies

ican't wants to talk about Kerry to deflect from his own weak arguments. What a laugh.

0 Replies

Hmmm?
47% prefer most troops out by the end of the year, no matter what.

40% prefer most troops stay until not needed.

8% prefer more troops stay until not needed.

5% other/don't know.

So 48% prefer most stay until not needed or more troops stay until not needed.

I'd call that a tie.

0 Replies

icant has difficulty with polls. He completely missed "47% prefer most troops out by the end of the year, no matter what."[/color]

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

icant wrote:
That poll had to do with the preferred size of our troop removal from Iraq by the end of 2006. I prefer removing 100% of the coalition's troops as soon as the newly elected Iraqi government asks us to. I prefer them doing that by January 31, 2006, after they are for good reason convinced they can henceforth take care of their own security.

icant also wrote that giving time frames for US pullout would give the insurgency critical information.

If icant believes that the insurgency will stop by January 31, 2006, he is misinformed about the insurgency and what qualifies as critical information for the insurgency.

That is one of the dumbest posts you have ever posted.

I expressed a preference for when the Iraqis can defend themselves and ask us to leave. I gave no time frame for when we will actually leave. There's no critical information in that.

I don't believe "the insurgency will stop by January 31, 2006." I simply prefer that "the insurgency will stop by January 31, 2006."

I guess your statements do not truly represent your actual reasoning (gad, I sure hope not for your sake). If that guess of mine were true, that would mean your statement is a fraud.

0 Replies

ican't, YOu are the fraud. You misinterpret polls and my posts. When I say I "believe" in something, it's only an opinion - not fact. Trying to infer anything else makes you a fraud.

0 Replies

US 'is failing to protect itself'
Four years after the 11 September attacks, the US has failed to protect itself against terrorism, say former members of the 11 September commission.
The members, now a pressure group, say the US is still vulnerable because it has failed to implement vital reforms. "While the terrorists are learning and adapting, our government is still moving at a crawl," chairman Thomas Kean told reporters.

The commission made a number of urgent recommendations in a report in 2004.

It urged sweeping changes to the intelligence services, after finding that the government had "failed to protect American people" before the 2001 attacks.

The commission was disbanded after the report was published, but since then the same commissioners have run a pressure group called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project.

'Excuses'

The 2004 report's centrepiece proposal of reforming the intelligence services has been enacted, but the commissioners said the administration had stalled on other recommendations.

In a so-called report card on the government's progress, the former commissioners said it had earned "more Fs than As" on 41 measures of progress.

We believe that the terrorists will strike again
Thomas Kean
9/11 Public Discourse Project

The commissioners said the government should make it a top national security priority to prevent weapons of mass destruction from getting into the hands of terrorists.

The government also needed to improve its disaster response, they said, including improving communication among emergency workers, and ensuring that federal funding is distributed according to risk levels.

"We believe that the terrorists will strike again. So does every responsible expert that we have talked to," Mr Kean, a former governor, said.

"If they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuses be?" he added.

President George Bush's National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley admitted there was more to do.

White House aide Dan Bartlett told US television that the administration had acted on some 70% of the commission's recommendations, and that others were awaiting action by Congress.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4500856.stm

Published: 2005/12/05 17:42:41 GMT

Thie incompetence of this administration continues - long after 9-11, the date Bush loves to repeat.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican't wants to talk about Kerry to deflect from his own weak arguments. What a laugh.

Cyclo brought up current polls and the 2004 election. He alleged the 2004 election indicated how unwise the American voter is.

I responded to that allegation by describing my understanding of the Republican voter's perception of Kerry. I guessed that is what caused such an unusually heavy Republican voter turn out in 2004. I advised the Democrats to put Kerry up again. I should have added that if the Democrats were to announce that before the 2006 elections, they'd get more Republicans to vote in both the 2006 and 2008 elections than would otherwise vote.

OK, now back to Iraq. I have repeatedly posted a preponderance of evidence supporting the following allegations.

Al Qaeda and the al Qaeda religion are a deadly threat to a major part of humanity. Al Qaeda must be exterminated or it will attempt to exterminate that major part of humanity that chooses not to adopt the al Qaeda religion. Anyone or government that abetts al Qaeda, is likewise a deadly threat to that same part of humanity.

Al Qaeda moved into Iraq December 2001 (after 9/11/2001 and after the USA invasion of Afghanistan October 2001) and established new training camps there. Al Qaeda grew substantially by the time of our invasion of Iraq in March 2003, because Saddam's government tolerated (i.e., harbored) al Qaeda in Iraq.

Regardless of why Bush decided to invade Iraq, his decision to do so was a fortunate decision for humanity.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know