Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
And please, save me the breathless exhortations about how a failed state will lead to increased terrorism for the US... that's a tired, old line with no actual legitimacy in fact - like most of the arguments made by the pro-war crowd, now that I think about it.
Cycloptichorn
That statement of yours, Cyclo, is "a tired old line with no actual legitimacy in fact" - like most of the arguments made by the anti-America gang.
Why do you think al-Qaeda attacked US and western european facilities multiple times (since its creation) for no other reason than to convince the US and western europeans to leave the middle east?
Hmmm! Maybe you don't believe that. Well then, say whatever it is that leads you to believe our failure in Iraq will NOT lead to increased terrorism for the US.
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, And where is your army coming from?
From some US troops in Iraq!
ican, I have a real CLUE for you; it's only a matter of time before a terrorist does their dastardly deed in the US (as in the past) - and they may even be US born and bred.
Quote:
Hmmm! Maybe you don't believe that. Well then, say whatever it is that leads you to believe our failure in Iraq will NOT lead to increased terrorism for the US.
Because of the old Arab saying, of course.
Me versus my brother
My brother and I versus our cousin
All of us versus you
We are the 'you' in this picture. We give AQ legitimacy by our presence. We are foreign occupiers who invaded a country (uninvited) and now refuse to leave.
A huge part of the reason that AQ has such purchase in Iraq is due to our presence.
Let me ask you - what makes you think that AQ has any ability to control Iraq? To run the place? They don't. All they could do is terrorize.
Cycloptichorn
ican wrote :
Quote:If the US were to concentrate on exterminating al-Qaeda in Pakistan, rather than replacing the government of Pakistan, or even directing the government of Pakistan, the required ordnance and special forces required would be small compared to our current program in Afghanistan, and very very small compared to our current program in Iraq.
maybe i'm complete misinformed , but from what i understand , the pakastinis (government , defence forces , THE PEOPLE) would not welcome an american invasion force with open arms .
the flowers that the iraqis were supposed to hand the american soldiers upon the invasion of iraq will likely have wilted even more under the pakistani sun .
i wonder if american people have been asked if they are ready for a prolonged war with pakistan and the rest of the nations of the area ?
here would be an excellent point of entry for a2k'ers to sign up !
let's see what the response is .
hbg
Quote:PAF Gets A New Tactical Attack Squadron
April 25, 2007: A new fighter squadron "No 27 Tactical Attack Squadron" has been added to Pakistan Air Force in a formation ceremony held at PAF Base, Rafiqui (Shorkot) on Thursday. Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmed Chief of the Air Staff Pakistan Air Force was the Chief Guest on the occasion.
The No 27 Tactical Attack Squadron, the latest addition in PAF inventory, will be equipped with modernized Mirages, specialized in Night Attack role, said a press release. The Air Chief congratulated all personnel of No 27 Tactical Attack Squadron PAF Base, Rafiqui and Pakistan Air Force on the formation of No 27 Squadron.
He said, "the specialist night strike role of the squadron directly augments Pakistan's war potential, as night fighting capability becomes an indispensable element in the present day air warfare."
source :
OFFICIAL SITE : PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORCES
You mean those guys and gals who've spent 2 - 3 tours of duty already with some of the shortest rest periods in US record?
Yeah, good idea.
c.i. :
so you are signing on - flowers or no flowers ?
(i do wonder - at least occasionally - why ican thinks it's such a good idea to see the whole world go up in flames - a secret death wish ?)
hbg
Quote:By swallowing evil words unsaid, no one has ever harmed his stomach.
Winston Churchill
hbg, I thought you'd be one a2ker who'd notice the wise-crack in my statement. Gotta be careful in the future, heh? LOL
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, I have a real CLUE for you; it's only a matter of time before a terrorist does their dastardly deed in the US (as in the past) - and they may even be US born and bred.
Well Cice, what do you think primarily affects the amount "of time before a terrorist does their dastardly deed in the US (as in the past)?"
Why do you think so?
cicerone imposter wrote:You mean those guys and gals who've spent 2 - 3 tours of duty already with some of the shortest rest periods in US record?
Yeah, good idea.
NO! I MEAN SOME OF THE SPECIAL FORCES GUYS AND GALS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN IRAQ WOULD BETTER BE RE-DIRECTED, BEFORE THEIR CURRENT TOUR ENDS, TO FOCUS ON EXTERMINATING AL-QAEDA.
hamburger wrote:
...
you are signing on - flowers or no flowers ?
(i do wonder - at least occasionally - why ican thinks it's such a good idea to see the whole world go up in flames - a secret death wish ?)
hbg
...
I WONDER WHY YOU THINK "ICAN THINKS IT'S SUCH A GOOD IDEA TO SEE THE WHOLE WORLD GO UP IN FLAMES?"
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:
Hmmm! Maybe you don't believe that. Well then, say whatever it is that leads you to believe our failure in Iraq will NOT lead to increased terrorism for the US.
Because of the old Arab saying, of course.
Me versus my brother
My brother and I versus our cousin
All of us versus you
We are the 'you' in this picture. We give AQ legitimacy by our presence. We are foreign occupiers who invaded a country (uninvited) and now refuse to leave.
A huge part of the reason that AQ has such purchase in Iraq is due to our presence.
Let me ask you - what makes you think that AQ has any ability to control Iraq? To run the place? They don't. All they could do is terrorize.
Cycloptichorn
I DO NOT THINK THAT AQ HAS ANY ABILITY TO CONTROL IRAQ IN THE NEAR FUTURE. BUT THEY CLEARLY NOW HAVE AN ABILITY TO INFLUENCE DIFFERENT GROUPS IN IRAQ TO MASS MURDER EACH OTHER.
I AGREE. ALL THEY CAN NOW DO, HAVE DONE, AND WILL DO FOR QUITE A WHILE IS TERRORIZE. HOWEVER, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEIR TERRORIZING BECOMES A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR THEM TO CONTROL LARGE POPULATIONS AMONG US ALL.
Quote:HOWEVER, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEIR TERRORIZING BECOMES A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR THEM TO CONTROL LARGE POPULATIONS AMONG US ALL.
Really?
Well, what will be the differences in between now, and the future in which such things will work?
Cycloptichorn
Some things we rarely hear about:
Iraqi Troops Suicide Rate Highest Ever
AlterNet has the best article I've seen in the media about PTSD and the Iraqi veterans. Unfortunately, the news is not good. The proportion of vets with PTSD is higher in this conflict than in any other previously monitored war. Suicide accounted for over 25 percent of all noncombat Army deaths in Iraq in 2006, that's double what it was in peace time and much higher than rates from Iraq War I and Vietnam.
With the VA reporting inadequate resources to treat returning veterans, slow response to those most at risk for PTSD: the National Guard and Reserve troops, and the continuing stigma of mental illness are greatly exacerbating the problem. Female vets are returning home with PTSD due to sexual trauma, too often allegedly perpetrated by fellow American soldiers.
There is some good news in all this. There is evidence that treatment is helpful to improving the quality of life of vets. Brief Cognitive Behavior Therapy can mitigate initial symptoms, but doesn't impact long-term prognosis. However, there is a promising new treatment called "prolonged exposure" that has demonstrated efficacy in a few studies.
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder is the result of subtle biological changes in the brain chemistry as a response to severe stress, which alters the way the brain stores memories. During a particularly intense episode, the body releases massive amounts of adrenaline, and the physiological alterations associated with the intense emotional reaction create memories that disrupt normal life.
From the NYTimes (in bold):
My comments in blue.
This is laughable; the Iraqi government doesn't have any influence or cooperation within its own government. Setting deadlines is useless; they just playing the game forced by US politics.
In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.
This "directive" to complete the laws on the division of oil proceeds is the primary goal of the Bush administration, because the major US oil companies will be involved.
Iraq's Shiite dominated-government, Admiral Fallon added in the meeting, has consolidated power and should have the confidence to reach out to its opponents. "You have the power," Admiral Fallon said. "You should take the initiative."
Like Bush does with the democrats, the American People, or congress? Funny.
The admiral's appeal, which was made in the presence of Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, a senior political adviser to the command and this reporter, elicited an assurance from Mr. Maliki that he hoped to make some progress over the coming weeks. But he also offered a lengthy account of all the tribulations facing the Iraqi government, including tenuous security, distrustful neighboring Sunni states and a complex legal agenda.
Ah, "tenous security, distrustful neighboring Sunni states and a complex legal agenda." Sounds like that's been the problem for the past three years, and the US now demands resolution on these issues. Realistic, not.
"There are lots of difficulties that are not well understood from outside," Mr. Maliki said. "Still, we're trying hard."
These are long-term problems that will not disappear any time soon. We've been hearing Bush say the word "progress" so many times, one must wonder if he's sane or insane.
c.i. wrote :
Quote:hbg, I thought you'd be one a2ker who'd notice the wise-crack in my statement. Gotta be careful in the future, heh? LOL
churchill's comments about "swallowing words" were certainly NOT directed at you !
i should have specified "axis of evil" !
sorry , c.i. !
hbg
Should we really be concerned about the wellbeing of the Iraqis?
AMONG SCORES OF SUSPECTED `HONOR KILLINGS' BY MUSLIMS IN BRITAIN
Guilty in daughter's death
Father ordered slaying blamed on `shame' she brought on her family
PAISLEY DODDS
Associated Press
LONDON --A father who ordered his daughter brutally slain for falling in love with the wrong man in a so-called "honor killing" was found guilty of murder Monday.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was strangled with a boot lace, stuffed into a suitcase and buried in a back garden.
Her death is the latest in an increasing trend of such killings in Britain, home to some 1.8 million Muslims. More than 100 homicides are under investigation as potential "honor killings."
Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, planned the killing during a family meeting, prosecutors told the court. Two others have pleaded guilty in the case. Two more suspects have fled the country. Sentencing is expected later this month.
The men accused the young woman of shaming her family by ending an abusive arranged marriage, of becoming too Westernized and of falling in love with a man who didn't come from their Iraqi village. The Kurdish family came to Britain in 1998 when Banaz Mahmod was 11.
"She was my present, my future, my hope," said Rahmat Suleimani, 29, Banaz Mahmod's boyfriend.
During the three-month trial, prosecutors said Mahmod's father beat his daughter for using hairspray and adopting other Western ways. Her uncle once told her she would have been "turned to ashes" if she were his daughter and had shamed the family by becoming involved with the Iranian Kurd, her sister 22-year-old Bekhal Mahmod testified.
Banaz Mahmod ran away from home when she was a teenager but returned when her father warned he would kill her sisters, her mother and himself if she did not come home, her sister said.
She was later hospitalized after her brother attacked her, the sister told the court. The brother said he had been paid by their father to finish her off but in the end was unable to do it, said the sister, who testified in a full black burqa. She said she still feared for her own life.
The years of Banaz Mahmod's abuse were compounded by police officers who repeatedly dismissed her cries for help.
She first went to police in December 2005, saying she suspected her uncle was trying to kill her and her boyfriend. She sent police a letter naming the men who she thought would later kill her.
Laying in her hospital bed after the escape, Mahmod recorded a dramatic video message saying she was "really scared."
The videotape, taken by her boyfriend at the hospital, was shown to the jury during the trial.
In early 2006, a group of men allegedly approached her boyfriend and tried to lure him into a car but he refused. It was that event that prompted Banaz Mahmod to go to police again. This time officers tried to persuade her to stay in a safe house. She refused, believing that her mother would protect her.
But her mother and father left her alone in the house the next day. Her boyfriend alerted police after time passed in which she failed to send him text messages.
Her body wasn't discovered until three months later after police tracked phone records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Bush micromanaging this war?
Admiral: Bureaucracy hampers terror war
By RICHARD LARDNER and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers
1 hour, 25 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Two years after the nation's commando forces were given broad authority to attack terrorist networks, the elite units remain hampered by uncertainty over coordination, says the admiral chosen to head the U.S. Special Operations Command.
Navy Vice Adm. Eric Olson said that while the command has the lead for "synchronizing" the Bush administration's global war on terror, enforcement of that expanded jurisdiction has been difficult.
The command's "ability to drive behavior within (the Defense Department) is limited due to unclear definition of authorities," Olson said in a written response to a question from the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The response was made public Tuesday as the committee met to consider Olson's nomination to run the command, which is based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.
Olson's brief answer indicates President Bush's March 2005 decision to broadly empower U.S. commandos continues to be a source of friction within the military's hierarchy.
Most of the disagreement comes from other war-fighting commands responsible for managing operations across wide but specific stretches of the globe. These commands have been concerned the new license would encroach on how they manage their own theaters.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:HOWEVER, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THEIR TERRORIZING BECOMES A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR THEM TO CONTROL LARGE POPULATIONS AMONG US ALL.
Really?
Well, what will be the differences in between now, and the future in which such things will work?
Cycloptichorn
TIME! Obviously!
As I previously posted:
IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME!
Assuming the terrorists are not exterminated at a faster rate than they are created, as the frequency and size of their mass murders grows, people who are non-murderers will out of fear become increasingly subservient to the will of the terrorist leadership.
Good evening. I am Realjohboy. I know some of yall; others I don't. I have been following this and earlier Iraq threads periodically but not closely. Forgive me if I am repeating what has already been discussed.
Last month there was Iran and whether they might become more involved in this than they already are. Perhaps that has been defused; perhaps not. And now there is Turkey with its substantial Kurdish population and what might be looming with the Kurds in the north of Iraq. That is the quiet, relatively peaceful region of Iraq. If it blows up there will be about three "wars: going on in that country. It doesn't look good.
