1
   

Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 10:44 am
Pearls of wisdom? I have not made such a claim, but were it advanced, i'd call it pearls before swine, since the evidence is that it wouldn't register with you.

I strongly suspect that your avatar image is taken from the Virginia Tech shooters "multi-media" package sent to NBC. I'm currently searching for that image, and if i find it, and can confirm just what a sick puppy that would suggest you are, i'm going to contact the moderators and ask that at the least, they remove your avatar image, if they are not willing to ban you for using it.
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 10:54 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to pick an more authoritative source than 'rightwingnews' if you expect to be taken seriously. I have no problem with opinion or advocacy from any place, but 'news' is usually reserved for organizations (both left and right leaning) which have a reputation of truth.



Friend, they are QUOTES..... the source does not matter unless you are saying these left of center types never said any of it.... Note I left out the opinion of the link and focused simply on the quotes themselves....


You are not going to say that are you? Laughing

Quote:

Yes, actually, b/c the article you linked doesn't say anything about power and water levels at all.



Hmm Water and power specifically? They are expensive but not bad for a wartime environment.



Quote:

The insurgents and terrorists are indistinguishable from the regular population. How the hell do you 'rain hellfire' on them without hitting the civvies who live in the same area as they do?

There is no good way to tell a combatant from a non-combatant in a war such as this. You have identified our main problem in Iraq.



Leaflets.... Psyops and rewards......




Quote:


Who are these competent reconstruction agents you speak of? Please name them.


And which campaign "young republicans"?!? I am afraid I am not following you here....


Anyone would be better than the group who was sent to restart the Iraqi economy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600193_pf.html
Quote:

Quote:
After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience. A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.





They sent kids who were loyal to the cause over there to do a critical job, which they failed to do. The economy of the place never got back on its' feet and it has become a major problem for the US now.



Hmm how come this is not all over the news? I mean a story as big as this surely would make it big on the news... Unless of course its not quite accurate or fully truthful.


Do you have any coorborating evidence? Or is this guy just hawking a book..... hint hint....

CLue


Quote:

Quote:


I see so we should all know detailed specific war and battle plans. Hell we should CC the enemy too! Laughing


Fact: Most of Iraq is peaceful.


We should know some details. You and Bush have provided none.

And most of Iraq is empty desert. Those parts are pretty peaceful, yeah. It's only the areas where people actually live that have problems Rolling Eyes



I don't have a bat phone to Bush and I dont think he is required to brief me. I will check on that though.... Laughing




Also for your viewing pleasure:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2007/iraq-security-stability_mar2007-005.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2007/iraq-security-stability_mar2007-005.htm



Quote:

Quote:


What makes you so sure? Why would I be happy? This should be good....


Quote:

Point 3 I agree with. I would have went in with a scorched earth policy.... But then you would have a whole different set of gripes....


When the people you are trying to attack are intermixed with a civilian population, and you advocate a scorched earth policy (and grin about it), then you are advocating the mass slaughter of innocents.

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]


Again assumption based on ignorance... see above.
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 10:57 am
Setanta wrote:
Pearls of wisdom? I have not made such a claim, but were it advanced, i'd call it pearls before swine, since the evidence is that it wouldn't register with you.

I strongly suspect that your avatar image is taken from the Virginia Tech shooters "multi-media" package sent to NBC. I'm currently searching for that image, and if i find it, and can confirm just what a sick puppy that would suggest you are, i'm going to contact the moderators and ask that at the least, they remove your avatar image, if they are not willing to ban you for using it.





Laughing


I can assure you that is not Cho. That dashing looking feller exercising his 2nd amendment rights is the Good Reverend Hellh0und during one of his many CQB training seminars in a shoothouse for local LEO, PMC's, and .mil types.


hoplophobic are we? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:02 am
reverend hellh0und wrote:
hoplophobic are we?


What's that we sh!t, have you got a mouse in your pocket?

I don't fear firearms, and i think the image resembles the Great American Doofus, with nothing "dashing" about it. I'm not surprised, though, to read you attempt to suggest that there is anything "dashing" about the obsessive behavior exhibited in the image.

I have reported it to the moderators, so that they can determine if it is an image of Cho, and if so, i hope they take action on it.
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:06 am
Setanta wrote:
reverend hellh0und wrote:
hoplophobic are we?


What's that we sh!t, have you got a mouse in your pocket?

I don't fear firearms, and i think the image resembles the Great American Doofus, with nothing "dashing" about it. I'm not surprised, though, to read you attempt to suggest that there is anything "dashing" about the obsessive behavior exhibited in the image.

I have reported it to the moderators, so that they can determine if it is an image of Cho, and if so, i hope they take action on it.




So let me get this straight. Its ok here to insult and attack people but its not ok to put such a handsome picture of myself up as my avatar?


So when will you start discussing the issues, not the greatness that is the Good Reverend Hellh0und?


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:06 am
What a pathetic response.

Links to a right-wing site criticizing someone's book do not provide dispositive evidence that what was written in that book isn't true, sorry.

You claimed that utilities were 'more running now than Hussein ever had!' This is factually untrue. I see that you have retreated from this point, though.

Psy-ops, leaflets and rewards? Are you seriously advocating that as a plan for weeding out the insurgents from the population? Rolling Eyes

Your graph shows exactly what I said: that any region which has a siginficant population is seeing violence, with the exception of the Kurdish regions up north. The rest is mostly desert. Thanks!

Bush and his supporters have a responsibility to outline their plans, which neither he nor you are able to do. The 'trust me' form of government doesn't work here in America.

You do realize that the Dems will be successful in pulling out the troops and ending the war? All they have to do is not pass another funding bill. Bush is actually hoist by his own petard on this one, as there was zero reason that this money needed to be provided on an 'emergency' basis. He just wanted to keep the 100 billion or so out of the regular budget, so it looks like the gov't is doing a better job cutting the deficit. Now, he's paying the price Smile

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:10 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Your graph shows exactly what I said: that any region which has a siginficant population is seeing violence, with the exception of the Kurdish regions up north. The rest is mostly desert. Thanks!



Actually that "desert" houses 63% of the population making my statment true.

Quote:

Bush and his supporters have a responsibility to outline their plans, which neither he nor you are able to do. The 'trust me' form of government doesn't work here in America.



Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
Failure is Not an Option
Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated
The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.
Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.
Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.
Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.
The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:
Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing
Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.
For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.
Victory Will Take Time
Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.
Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.
It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.
Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.
Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based
With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.
But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.
We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.
While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.
Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.



there is more here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html



Quote:

You do realize that the Dems will be successful in pulling out the troops and ending the war? All they have to do is not pass another funding bill. Bush is actually hoist by his own petard on this one, as there was zero reason that this money needed to be provided on an 'emergency' basis. He just wanted to keep the 100 billion or so out of the regular budget, so it looks like the gov't is doing a better job cutting the deficit. Now, he's paying the price Smile

Cycloptichorn



I think your right. But thats not a good thing.




(I cut some of the post out due to too many tangents Wink )
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:11 am
Leaving aside the complete lack of evidence that there is anything "handsome" or "great" to be found in that pathetic image, i have discussed the topic.

My comment remains, that rightwingnuts will for years attempt to claim that the Democrats are responsible for "failure" in Iraq. My other comment also remains, that the "failure" in Iraq is a result of a dimwit on Pennsylvania Avenue having decided to engage in an unnecessary and "unwinable" war in the first place.
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:13 am
Setanta wrote:
Leaving aside the complete lack of evidence that there is anything "handsome" or "great" to be found in that pathetic image, i have discussed the topic.

My comment remains, that rightwingnuts will for years attempt to claim that the Democrats are responsible for "failure" in Iraq. My other comment also remains, that the "failure" in Iraq is a result of a dimwit on Pennsylvania Avenue having decided to engage in an unnecessary and "unwinable" war in the first place.





very nice.........

Democrats are to blame. They have been shooting down the effort at every turn. I don't know why as a leftist you think thats a bad thing. Its EXACTLY what you want.

Some of us believe in victory we are the winners..... Wink
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:13 am
Setanta wrote:
Whatever the outcome in Iraq, i have no doubt that conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular will spend at least a decade, if not longer, with sour pusses blaming the Democrats and godless liberal crypto-commies for a "defeat."


word...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:14 am
One Choice in Iraq

By Joe Lieberman
Thursday, April 26, 2007; A29



Last week a series of coordinated suicide bombings killed more than 170 people. The victims were not soldiers or government officials but civilians -- innocent men, women and children indiscriminately murdered on their way home from work and school.

If such an atrocity had been perpetrated in the United States, Europe or Israel, our response would surely have been anger at the fanatics responsible and resolve not to surrender to their barbarism.

Unfortunately, because this slaughter took place in Baghdad, the carnage was seized upon as the latest talking point by advocates of withdrawal here in Washington. Rather than condemning the attacks and the terrorists who committed them, critics trumpeted them as proof that Gen. David Petraeus's security strategy has failed and that the war is "lost."

And today, perversely, the Senate is likely to vote on a binding timeline of withdrawal from Iraq.

This reaction is dangerously wrong. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there.

What is needed in Iraq policy is not overheated rhetoric but a sober assessment of the progress we have made and the challenges we still face.

In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable: tamping down the Shiite-led sectarian violence that paralyzed Baghdad until recently and consolidating support from Iraqi Sunnis -- particularly in Anbar, a province dismissed just a few months ago as hopelessly mired in insurgency.

This progress is real, but it is still preliminary.

The suicide bombings we see now in Iraq are an attempt to reverse these gains: a deliberate, calculated counteroffensive led foremost by al-Qaeda, the same network of Islamist extremists that perpetrated catastrophic attacks in Kenya, Indonesia, Turkey and, yes, New York and Washington.

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaeda is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaeda but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The current wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States -- to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of last week's attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias -- as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq would not vanish.

Al-Qaeda, after all, isn't carrying out mass murder against civilians in the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenue. Its aim in Iraq isn't to get a seat at the political table; it wants to blow up the table -- along with everyone seated at it.

Certainly al-Qaeda can be weakened by isolating it politically. But even after the overwhelming majority of Iraqis agree on a shared political vision, there will remain a hardened core of extremists who are dedicated to destroying that vision through horrific violence. These forces cannot be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. They must be defeated.

The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

The writer is an independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:15 am
The Democrats' Gonzales

By David S. Broder
Thursday, April 26, 2007; A29



Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.

Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."

He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.

Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

[email protected]
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:16 am
IRAQ: WHO'S WINNING, HARRY?
By AMIR TAHERI

April 26, 2007 -- WITHOUT meaning to do so, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pushed the debate on Iraq in a new direction.
Reid claims that the war is lost and that the United States has already been defeated.

By advancing the claim, Reid has moved the debate away from the initial antiwar obsession with the legal and diplomatic controversies that preceded it.

At the same time, Reid has parted ways with Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who supported the war but who now claims that its conduct has been disastrous. What they mean, by implication, is that a Democratic president would do better than George W. Bush and win the war.

Reid's new position, however, means that even a Democratic president wouldn't be able to ensure a U.S. victory in Iraq. For him, Iraq is irretrievably lost.

Some antiwar analysts have praised Reid for what they term "his clarity of perception." A closer examination, however, would show that Reid might have added to the confusion that has plagued his party over the issue from the start.

Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner. This Reid cannot do.

The reason is that, whichever way one looks at the situation, America and its Iraqi allies remain the only objective victors in this war.

Reid cannot name al Qaeda as the winner, because the terror organization has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It hasn't been able to halt the process of democratization, marked by a string of elections, and it has failed to destroy the still fragile institutions created in the post-Saddam era. Al Qaeda is also suffering from increasing failure to attract new recruits, while coming under pressure from Iraqi Sunni Arab tribes, especially west of the Euphrates.

In military terms, al Qaeda hasn't won any territory and has lost the control it briefly exercised in such places as Fallujah and Samarra. More important, al Qaeda has failed to develop a political program, focusing instead on its campaign of mindless terror.

What about the remnants of the Saddamite regime? Can Reid name them as victors? Hardly. What's left of the Baath Party has split into four warring factions with rival leaders in exile.

The remnants of the Republican Guards have also split. Some have joined Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, now the Loch Ness monster of Iraqi politics. Others have set up crime syndicates and/or death squads with no discernible political ambitions.

Reid may believe that Iran, either alone or with its Syrian Sancho Panza, is the victor. If that's the case, Reid shares the illusion peddled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Convinced that the Americans will run away, mostly thanks to political maneuvers by Reid and his friends, Ahmadinejad has gone on the offensive in Iraq and throughout the region. By heightening his profile, he wants to make sure that Iran reaps the fruits of what Reid is sowing in Washington.

But even then, it's unlikely that most Iraqis would acknowledge Ahmadinejad as winner and bow to his diktat. The Islamic Republic cannot act as victor solely because Reid says so.

It's possible that Reid imagined that his analytical problems are over simply because he has identified the war's loser. The truth is that his troubles are only beginning. He must tell Americans to whom they wish their army to surrender in Iraq.

That Reid is desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory isn't surprising. His party requires an American defeat in Iraq in order to win the congressional and presidential elections next year.

What is generically known as "the war" is, in fact, three wars.

The first war was about changing the status quo in Iraq. America won by destroying Saddam's regime, ending Baghdad's stand-off with the United Nations and establishing that Iraq was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Victory in that war was achieved in 2003 with the completion of the U.S.-led investigation into Iraq's alleged WMD programs.

The second war was triggered by forces that wanted to prevent America from creating a new status quo that favored its interests along with the interests of a majority of Iraqis. This second war also ended in victory for America and its allies with the holding of free elections and, eventually, the emergence of a democratic Iraqi government in 2006.

The third and current war started toward the end of last year when the disparate forces fighting against the democratic government found a new point of convergence in a quest for driving America out. The Bush administration understood this and responded with its "surge" policy by dispatching more troops to Baghdad.

Unlike the two previous wars in which anti-American forces pursued a variety of goals, their sole aim this time is to drive the Americans out. In that sense, al Qaeda and other Islamist agents in Iraq have forged an unofficial alliance with residual Saddamites, criminal gangs, pan-Shiite chauvinists and small groups of Iraqis who fight out of genuine nationalistic but misguided motives.

Despite continued violence, America and its Iraqi allies are winning this third war, too. Their enemies are like the man in a casino who wins a heap of tokens at the roulette table, but is told at the cashier that those cannot be exchanged for real money.

The terrorists, the insurgents, the criminal gangs and the chauvinists of all ilk are still killing many people. But they cannot translate those killings into political gains. Their constituencies are shrinking, and the pockets of territory where they hide are becoming increasingly exposed. They certainly cannot drive the Americans out. No power on earth can. Unless, of course, Harry Reid does it for them.

Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri is based in Europe.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:18 am
Quote:


Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner.


wrongo

Just because we are losing the war - have lost our opportunity to get our goals accomplished - does not mean there is a clear winner yet.

Foolishness, and a predictable right-wing talking point, no more.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 11:21 am
people that were influential and powerful in both the US and iraq remain so, thanks to the miracle of sucking each other off under the table while the citizens they are sworn to serve pay the price.

you may say that's wrong,we hung Saddam and killed a few of his people but they were just the cosmetic sacrifice....
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 12:28 pm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110CkkRG3::

HR 1591 U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007 (Reported in House)

LOOK AT ALL THE NON RELATED PORK IN THIS BILL!!!!!

Hurricane Education Recovery

PROGRAMS TO RESTART SCHOOL OPERATIONS

Funds made available under section 102 of the Hurricane Education Recovery Act (title IV of division B of Public Law 109-148) may be used by the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, in addition to the uses of funds described in section 102(e) for the following costs: (1) recruiting and compensating teachers, principals, other school administrators, and other educators for positions in reopening public elementary and secondary schools impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita, including through such mechanisms as paying salary premiums, performance bonuses, housing subsidies and relocation costs; and (2) activities to build the capacity of

PROGRAMS TO RESTART SCHOOL OPERATIONS

Funds made available under section 102 of the Hurricane Education Recovery Act (title IV of division B of Public Law 109-148) may be used by the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, in addition to the uses of funds described in section 102(e) for the following costs:

Higher Education

For an additional amount under part B of title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (`HEA') for institutions of higher education (as defined in section 102 of that Act) that are located in an area in which a major disaster was declared in accordance with section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act related to hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in calendar year 2005, $30,000,000:

[/B]TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE

For an additional amount for the purposes specified under, and subject to the provisions of, this heading in chapter 9 of title I of division B of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2779), $80,000,000, to remain available until December 31, 2007:




YOUR Govt in action.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 03:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner.


wrongo

Just because we are losing the war - have lost our opportunity to get our goals accomplished - does not mean there is a clear winner yet.

Foolishness, and a predictable right-wing talking point, no more.

Cycloptichorn


If we are "losing the war" and must get out,lets look at some recent history.
Japan attacked the US on 12/7/1941,do you agree with that?
Now,without exception,we lost EVERY battle we had with the Japanese from then till Feb of 1943,when we defeated the Japanese in the Guadalcanal-Tulagi campaign.

So,using your logic,we should have given up the fight,because it took us over a year to win our first battle.
I agree,it has taken us longer then I thought it would to win in Iraq,but only the left thinks we cant win.

But,I gotta ask this...
Why is it wrong for us to be involved in a "civil war" in Iraq,yet many of you want us involved in the civil war in Darfur?
Also,why is it wrong now,but it was OK when the left wanted us involved in a civil war in Bosnia in the 1990's.

Is it a matter of which civil war it is?

reverend hellh0und,
You are not going to change any of these peoples minds about Iraq.
Their minds are made up and they dont want to be confused with facts.

They claim that all of the comments you posted by dems were made because Bush fooled them,yet they seem to ignore the fact that it makes the people that made the comments look more stupid then normal if they let Bush fool them.
And,if Bush did fool them,it must mean that Bush was smarter then they were.

Also,many of the left on here are great "armchair generals".
They all know what must be done,and how,yet most of them have never served and wouldnt know one end of a weapon from another.

So,welcome to A2K,but dont expect much from those on the left.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 03:43 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


Because all wars have winners and losers, Reid, having identified America as the loser, is required to name the winner.


wrongo

Just because we are losing the war - have lost our opportunity to get our goals accomplished - does not mean there is a clear winner yet.

Foolishness, and a predictable right-wing talking point, no more.

Cycloptichorn


If we are "losing the war" and must get out,lets look at some recent history.
Japan attacked the US on 12/7/1941,do you agree with that?
Now,without exception,we lost EVERY battle we had with the Japanese from then till Feb of 1943,when we defeated the Japanese in the Guadalcanal-Tulagi campaign.

So,using your logic,we should have given up the fight,because it took us over a year to win our first battle.


Bull crap. What you've written here has no relation to anything that I've written at all.

Quote:
I agree,it has taken us longer then I thought it would to win in Iraq,but only the left thinks we cant win.


No, you're wrong again. It's the left and the middle which think we have already lost the war. Only the Right thinks we can still win, and not even all of them do.

Every poll supports this.

Quote:
But,I gotta ask this...
Why is it wrong for us to be involved in a "civil war" in Iraq,yet many of you want us involved in the civil war in Darfur?
Also,why is it wrong now,but it was OK when the left wanted us involved in a civil war in Bosnia in the 1990's.

Is it a matter of which civil war it is?


No, it's a matter of UN/world involvement vs. Unilateral US decision. The weight of the world body has more force than just the US, and it's how we should be solving problems.

Quote:
reverend hellh0und,
You are not going to change any of these peoples minds about Iraq.
Their minds are made up and they dont want to be confused with facts.


Facts? That's pretty funny coming from Mr. 'Clinton did it!' You consistently make illogical and emotional arguments, MM, but rarely factual ones.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 03:50 pm
I've seen a good many "armchair generals" on the right, as well.

Your World War Two thesis is fatally flawed, MM, for three reasons. The first is that the Battle of the Coral Sea, which took place in May, 1942, was a strategic victory for the Allies. Although it can be considered a tactical victory for the Japanese, because they lost only a light carrier and we lost Lexington, it constituted an Allied strategic victory, because the Japanese abandoned their plan to land a force to take Port Moresby on New Guinea. The second reason your thesis is flawed is because events such as battles, or even campaigns, do not take place in vacuums. Many, many other things are happening at the same time. The Japanese had "budgeted" five weeks to take the Philippine Islands--but although they landed in December, 1941, they did not finally take the American-Phillipino surrender until April, 1942. At the same time, they were attempting to cross the mountains in New Guinea to take Port Moresby and set up a base for an attack on Port Darwin, and a possible invasion of Australia.

MacArthur had only just reached Australia and begun to assemble the forces with which the Japanese on New Guinea would be defeated, when the Navy fought and lost the battle of the Coral Sea, while gaining a strategic victory which ensured the safety of the Allied base at Port Moresby. To look at Guadalcanal without considering what was happening elsewhere in the Pacific is the sort of short-sightedness which one finds in armchair historians.

Finally, your thesis is flawed because we have been in this war for more than four years. The Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor in December, 1941. Four years later, in December, 1945, the war in the Pacific had been over for three months. The Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad haven't been performing very well by that standard.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Apr, 2007 03:51 pm
Quote:
No, you're wrong again. It's the left and the middle which think we have already lost the war.


And if you "think" we have lost the war,it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
You think we have lost,so you do whatever you can to get us out and to save ourselves,thereby causing us to lose the war.

Surely even you can see that.
And ALL of the soldiers I know,both in Iraq now or Iraq vets like myself,know we can win.
Tell me,who is correct?
The people that dont know one end of a weapon from the other (most liberals),or the people that are actually in Iraq now and have actual knowledge of whats going on?
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 01:37:44