9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 11:48 am
cicerone imposter wrote:

What should we expect the House to do?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 11:48 am
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
From Juan Cole;

...

The one worrisome thing in the video, Zawhiri's conviction that the US presence in Iraq is keeping al-Qaeda alive as a cause, which may well be correct. A whole new generation of jihadis with key terrorism skills is being created by their struggle against what they see as US occupation. That US interests are held harmless from this development in the long run seems unlikely.[/b][/size]

...

Al-Qaeda grew rapidly in Afghanistan from May 19, 1996 to September 11, 2003 like the malignancy it is without any presence by the USA. The shrinking of al-Qaeda in Iraq March 18, 2003 to the present is due to the USA's presence in Iraq .


Al Qaeda has not shrunk in Iraq since March 2003; I don't know how you could post this with a straight face. By any and all estimations, the number of AQ in Iraq has grown exponentially since our invasion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 11:57 am
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

What should we expect the House to do?


Cut the funding, and bring our soldiers home.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 11:58 am
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 12:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
From Juan Cole;

...

The one worrisome thing in the video, Zawhiri's conviction that the US presence in Iraq is keeping al-Qaeda alive as a cause, which may well be correct. A whole new generation of jihadis with key terrorism skills is being created by their struggle against what they see as US occupation. That US interests are held harmless from this development in the long run seems unlikely.[/b][/size]

...

Al-Qaeda grew rapidly in Afghanistan from May 19, 1996 to September 11, 2003 like the malignancy it is without any presence by the USA. The shrinking of al-Qaeda in Iraq March 18, 2003 to the present is due to the USA's presence in Iraq .


Al Qaeda has not shrunk in Iraq since March 2003; I don't know how you could post this with a straight face. By any and all estimations, the number of AQ in Iraq has grown exponentially since our invasion.

Cycloptichorn

Al Qaeda has shrunk in Iraq since March 2003. I don't know how you could post otherwise with a straight face. Al-Qaeda shrunk shortly after March 2003. Then grew rapidly again until June 2007 when the surge became fully operational. After that it began to shrink rapidly. Presently, it is attempting to develop more hospitable sanctuaries outside of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 12:14 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.

I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 12:15 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
xingu wrote:
From Juan Cole;

...

The one worrisome thing in the video, Zawhiri's conviction that the US presence in Iraq is keeping al-Qaeda alive as a cause, which may well be correct. A whole new generation of jihadis with key terrorism skills is being created by their struggle against what they see as US occupation. That US interests are held harmless from this development in the long run seems unlikely.[/b][/size]

...

Al-Qaeda grew rapidly in Afghanistan from May 19, 1996 to September 11, 2003 like the malignancy it is without any presence by the USA. The shrinking of al-Qaeda in Iraq March 18, 2003 to the present is due to the USA's presence in Iraq .


Al Qaeda has not shrunk in Iraq since March 2003; I don't know how you could post this with a straight face. By any and all estimations, the number of AQ in Iraq has grown exponentially since our invasion.

Cycloptichorn

Al Qaeda has shrunk in Iraq since March 2003. I don't know how you could post otherwise with a straight face. Al-Qaeda shrunk shortly after March 2003. Then grew rapidly again until June 2007 when the surge became fully operational. After that it began to shrink rapidly. Presently, it is attempting to develop more hospitable sanctuaries outside of Iraq.


By all estimations, including those given by the US military, there are far more members of AQ in Iraq now then prior to our invasion. The fact that AQ shrunk for a little while before they started to grow exponentially is immaterial.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 12:30 pm
Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245_pf.html

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled
Many Officials, However, Warn Of Its Resilience

By Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 15, 2007; A01

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past.

"I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks." Earlier periods of optimism, such as immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed by expanded operations by the militant organization.

There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The deployment of more U.S. and Iraqi forces into AQI strongholds in Anbar province and the Baghdad area, as well as the recruitment of Sunni tribal fighters to combat AQI operatives in those locations, has helped to deprive the militants of a secure base of operations, U.S. military officials said. "They are less and less coordinated, more and more fragmented," Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq, said recently. Describing frayed support structures and supply lines, Odierno estimated that the group's capabilities have been "degraded" by 60 to 70 percent since the beginning of the year.

Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command's operations in Iraq, is the chief promoter of a victory declaration and believes that AQI has been all but eliminated, the military intelligence official said. But Adm. William J. Fallon, the chief of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, is urging restraint, the official said. The military intelligence official, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity about Iraq assessments and strategy.

Senior U.S. commanders on the ground, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, have long complained that Central Command, along with the CIA, is too negative in its analyses. On this issue, however, Petraeus agrees with Fallon, the military intelligence official said.

For each assessment of progress against AQI, there is a cautionary note that comes from long and often painful experience. Despite the increased killings and captures of AQI members, Odierno said, "it only takes three people" to construct and detonate a suicide car bomb that can "kill thousands." The goal, he said, is to make each attack less effective and lengthen the periods between them.

Right now, said another U.S. official, who declined even to be identified by the agency he works for, the data are "insufficient and difficult to measure."

"AQI is definitely taking some hits," the official said. "There is definite progress, and that is undeniable good news. But what we don't know is how long it will last . . . and whether it's sustainable. . . . They have withstood withering pressure for a long period of time." Three months, he said, is not long enough to consider a trend sustainable.

Views of the extent to which AQI has been vanquished also reflect differences over the extent to which it operates independently from Osama bin Laden's central al-Qaeda organization, based in Pakistan. "Everyone has an opinion about how franchisement of al-Qaeda works," a senior White House official said. "Is it through central control, or is it decentralized?" The answer to that question, the official said, affects "your ability to determine how successfully [AQI] has been defeated or neutralized. Is it 'game over'?"

In Baghdad, the White House official said, the group's "area of operations has been reduced quite a bit for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad." Three years of sectarian fighting have eliminated many mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Those areas had been the most fertile and accessible places for AQI, which is composed of extremist Sunnis, to attack Shiite civilians, security forces and government officials. But the death of mixed neighborhoods also has made another Bush administration priority -- promoting political reconciliation -- more difficult.

The expanded presence of U.S. troops in combat outposts in many parts of Baghdad has also put pressure on AQI, but a major test of gains against the organization will come when the U.S. military begins to turn security in those areas over to Iraqi forces next year.

Recent suicide bombings in northern Iraq have convinced some officials that AQI has moved its operations in that direction. But the officials said they do not know whether AQI militants have permanently decamped from Baghdad and Anbar province, or whether they are merely lying low in anticipation of a U.S. departure or the failure of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to end the sectarian divisions that AQI fostered and now feeds upon.

While a victory declaration might have the "psychological aspect" of discouraging recruitment to a perceived lost cause, the White House official said, advantages overall would be minimal. "I recognize that there are pros to saying, 'Hey, listen, the bad guys are on the run.' " But if AQI were later able to demonstrate residual capabilities with a series of bombings, "even though it was temporary," he said, "the question becomes: How does this play out in terms of public opinion?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 01:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.

I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.



It doesn't matter what the House does or doesn't do; all the polls show that the majority of Americans want our soldiers home. Our politicians are supposed to serve at the bequest of the citizens; not what they think is good or bad.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 02:04 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.

I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.



It doesn't matter what the House does or doesn't do; all the polls show that the majority of Americans want our soldiers home. Our politicians are supposed to serve at the bequest of the citizens; not what they think is good or bad.


Now who is living in a fantasy world.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 04:00 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.

I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.



It doesn't matter what the House does or doesn't do; all the polls show that the majority of Americans want our soldiers home. Our politicians are supposed to serve at the bequest of the citizens; not what they think is good or bad.


It may be news to you, ci, but we live not in a pure democracy, but instead a representative republic. If you don't like what your congressman is doing, call him or her.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 04:45 pm
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.

I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.



It doesn't matter what the House does or doesn't do; all the polls show that the majority of Americans want our soldiers home. Our politicians are supposed to serve at the bequest of the citizens; not what they think is good or bad.


It may be news to you, ci, but we live not in a pure democracy, but instead a representative republic. If you don't like what your congressman is doing, call him or her.


All congress members know what the Americans citizens want about our troops coming home within the year; no need to call any. Only stupid congressmen/women ignore the citizens. You can bet your bottom dollar, many will be looking for new jobs after the next election. As most of the polls show, the conservatives are in big trouble looking at the next election.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 08:37 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
That's the wish and demand of most Americans.

I bet a majority of the House doesn't believe that any more than I do. We shall see shortly.



It doesn't matter what the House does or doesn't do; all the polls show that the majority of Americans want our soldiers home. Our politicians are supposed to serve at the bequest of the citizens; not what they think is good or bad.


It may be news to you, ci, but we live not in a pure democracy, but instead a representative republic. If you don't like what your congressman is doing, call him or her.


All congress members know what the Americans citizens want about our troops coming home within the year; no need to call any. Only stupid congressmen/women ignore the citizens. You can bet your bottom dollar, many will be looking for new jobs after the next election. As most of the polls show, the conservatives are in big trouble looking at the next election.


Are you saying its only the conservatives that are keeping the troops in Iraq?
What about all the dems that keep voting to keep the troops there?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Dec, 2007 08:51 pm
What do you think?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 08:40 am
Strategy that is making Iraq safer was snubbed for years

Quote:
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:32 am
Nobody has ever claimed mistakes are not made. Name a war that has been run flawlessly from beginning to end.

So maybe instead of being called the "betrayer," perhaps Petraeus should have been Time Magazine's Man of the Year?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:38 am
okie wrote:
Nobody has ever claimed mistakes are not made. Name a war that has been run flawlessly from beginning to end.

So maybe instead of being called the "betrayer," perhaps Petraeus should have been Time Magazine's Man of the Year?


Haha, not so much.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:51 am
okie, Bush never selected anyone for service in his administration that was not expendible. They are what's termed "throw aways." I'm sure you don't need any help is naming some of them - starting with Colin Powell. Unless you're a "yes" man in Bush's circle, you don't survive.

You don't have to teach us about the US form of government. As I've said, the American people has spoken about getting our troops home soon. That our government doesn't listen is their problem; that's the reason their (congress') performance rating is in the dumps. No surprise there - except for people like you who think Bush is doing what Amerians want.

CLUE: This is not a kingdom.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:53 am
Correct, its a representative republic. Go talk to Congress, ci, that is where the war is approved and funded.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Dec, 2007 10:58 am
okie wrote:
Correct, its a representative republic. Go talk to Congress, ci, that is where the war is approved and funded.



Why should I speak to congress? They don't listen to the American People; and surprise, that includes me! You are stupid. Have you ever "talked" to congress? You are an imbecile without any common sense or any sense of reality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 01:14:12