THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Cyclo, You're trying to have a discussion with a guy who thinks nothing of wholesale extermination of a group of people. The guys a mental sicko.

mm :
the iraqi government has gone on vacation - please don't bother them !
seriously , i wonder where they've gone to ? i bet they are NOT in any of the hotspots - except perhaps dubai , where it is HOT and there are some lovely resorts .
hbg

hamburger wrote:

mm :
the iraqi government has gone on vacation - please don't bother them !
seriously , i wonder where they've gone to ? i bet they are NOT in any of the hotspots - except perhaps dubai , where it is HOT and there are some lovely resorts .
hbg

THe US congress has gone on vacation for a month also.
They have left many things either not done or not even started.

Do you think it was wrong for them to go on vacation also?
After all,we are at war.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Report finds Iraqi government precarious

By PAULINE JELINEK and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 9 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months and its security forces have not improved enough to operate without outside help, U.S. spy agencies conclude in a new assessment of the country's political and military fortunes.

Despite some uneven improvements, the analysts concluded that the level of overall violence is high, Iraq's sectarian groups remain unreconciled, and al-Qaida in Iraq is still able to conduct highly visible attacks.

That is the opinion of PAULINE JELINEK and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writers about what "U.S. spy agencies conclude in a new assessment of the country's political and military fortunes."

We'll learn more of the truth in less than a month.

No we won't. The NIE that was released today says exactly what the reporters wrote here.

What is your link?

In a month, the Bush WH will put out a report saying exactly the same things they have been saying all along. Petraeus will have absolutely nothing to do with this report.

Petraeus will have a great deal to say about what is in the report Bush submits to Congress in September, just like Petraeus had a lgreat deal to say about what was in Bush's July report. The Congress specifically asked Bush to provide both the July and September reports.

Cycloptichorn

Um, my link is to the text of the NIE - http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/nie-iraq-stability/

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... The NIE that was released today says exactly what the reporters wrote here.

Looks like the reporters actually got their stuff from the NIE.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How do you know that Petraeus will have a great deal to say about what is in the report?

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, You're trying to have a discussion with a guy who thinks nothing of wholesale extermination of a group of people. The guys a mental sicko.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Somebody has finally acknowledged that extended tours of duty [are] not healthy for our troops.
...

That acknowledgment is the most recent of a long series of such acknowledgments.

You need to acknowledge , like so many others have already, that we must not pull out of Iraq until we succeed in Iraq.

Your 'must' is not a 'must' at all.

Cycloptichorn

Sure it is!

I'll ask you the same questions I asked cice, but so far cice refused to answer.

A = the consequences of our leaving without achieving success in Iraq.

B = the consequences of our staying until achieving success in Iraq.

Which consequences, A or B, do you think will result in the fewest mass murders of Iraqi non-murderers over the next ten years, and why do you think so?

Which consequences, A or B, do you think will result in the fewest mass murders of American non-murderers over the next ten years, and why do you think so?

Quote:

old europe wrote:

ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"

ican711nm wrote:

(1)The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year after that to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year after that to be denied sanctuary anywhere in Iraq by the Iraq government.

I define 'success' differently then you do. But, to play along, I don't think there's any way of predicting which option, A or B, will lead to less overall Iraqi deaths. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that option B will lead to less American deaths.

Why? Because we cannot stamp out terrorism with armed forces alone, and the more we try to do so, the more resentment the unintentional victims of our actions will feel. This invites trouble to our shores. Haven't you learned the lessons of our past mistakes?

Cycloptichorn

There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that option B will lead to less American deaths.

A = the consequences of our leaving without achieving success in Iraq.

B = the consequences of our staying until achieving success in Iraq.

Given their credibility, the argument goes, their assessments should carry enormous weight. And on the other side of the aisle, critics of the administration have wondered how best to respond to a predictable report, written by Bush allies who have given skeptics reason to worry about their objectivity.

But this entire discussion seems to have been missing the point. Petraeus and Crocker aren't going to report to Congress; they're going to provide information to White House officials, who will in turn tell lawmakers how great things are going in Iraq. Petraeus and Crocker will apparently offer raw data, which the Bush gang will happily interpret on their behalf.

In other words, whether you find Petraeus and Crocker credible or not is irrelevant. Their much-anticipated September report will have their names on it, but will be ghost-written by the least credible sources the nation has on Iraq: the Bush White House.

What's more, the same article (in the 30th paragraph) added this gem:

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

So, when preparing a mandated status report in July, the administration openly considered and discussed the merits of lying to Congress. This apparently made some officials "uncomfortable."

Only 523 days to go….

Congress will question Petraeus in September just as Congress questioned Petraeus in July.

The people who without providing evidence chant the pseudo-liberal slanderous dirge that the administration's analysis of the situation in Iraq is not to be trusted, are repeatedly announcing they are frauds or fools, and are themselves not to be trusted..

Congress will question Petraeus in September just as Congress questioned Petraeus in July.

The people who without providing evidence chant the pseudo-liberal slanderous dirge that the administration's analysis of the situation in Iraq is not to be trusted, are repeatedly announcing they are frauds or fools, and are themselves not to be trusted..