Things (In Iraq) Fall Apart?
While everyone watching the news from Iraq is focused on whether the "surge" is working or not (in anticipation of General Petraeus' upcoming report to Congress), there are powerful undercurrents at work in the region which may do more to define the future of Iraq than any upcoming "the-glass-is-half-full" report in Washington, D.C.
The biggest, and most disturbing, of these is the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki seems to be losing whatever tenuous grip he holds on the reins of government. Boycotts of the Iraqi Parliament are threatened from almost every side, it seems -- Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd. As if this weren't bad enough, Maliki also faces an open revolt from within his own Dawa party. And at the same time he seems to be advocating kicking Petraeus out of his country.
While the story which the mainstream media seemed to pay attention to this week from Iraq was that the Iraqi Parliament was taking a month off for vacation (incidentally and completely ignoring the fact that our own American Congress -- and probably President Bush -- will also be taking the entire month off), the real story may be that the Iraqi Parliament may not even have a post-vacation government to come back to.
What would a post-Maliki Iraqi government look like? Would they hold immediate national elections to replace him, or will the whole parliamentary/democratic experiment just be scrapped? To be replaced with what, exactly?
Important questions, to be sure. Since they are not being asked by any mainstream journalists I'm aware of, we have no idea what the answers are likely to be. And that's a downright scary prospect.
But that's not the only scary news to report. It seems we, as a country, are incapable of realizing that when you're in the midst of a civil war, it's probably a good idea to choose sides and see what happens. Instead, we're doing our absolute best to enrage every single faction currently fighting in said civil war.
For a while there, it looked like we were de facto throwing our lot in with the Shi'ites. They are, after all, something like a 60% majority of the population of Iraq, so under a democratic system it would make sense to throw in with the group so obviously in the majority.
Unfortunately (since Bush reportedly had to be told what "Sunni" and "Shi'ite" actually meant, right before we invaded), our support was based solely on political expediency. At some point, it is assumed, someone explained the fact that Shi'ites were the people who ran the next-door government of Iran -- and ever since, our strong support for the Shi'ites has been somewhat fading.
Someone in the White House eventually realized that overthrowing Saddam in order to benefit Iran was probably not the best outcome of the war that the American people could hope for. After all, first we kicked the Taliban out of Afghanistan (removing a huge headache for next-door neighbor Iran), and then we removed Saddam from Iraq (also next-door to Iran, and whom the Iranians had actually fought a war against). Our entire military policy was actually benefiting Iran, and so the spin emanating from the White House began to change, a few months back.
The embarrassing facts "on the ground" were that most of the Iraqi Army (and virtually all of the Iraqi police) which we had so expensively trained, was actually sectarian Shi'ite. And these police were (at night) slipping out to become "death squads" who would deposit dozens upon dozens of Sunni dead bodies -- tortured with power drills, sometimes beheaded -- on the streets of Baghdad each and every morning.
Shi'ites were looking less and less like the horse to back in this race. So we started to demonize (Shi'ite) Iran.
All of a sudden, Iran is the one "meddling" in Iraq, and supplying them with "Explosively Formed Projectiles" (EFPs) which punch through Humvee armor and kill American soldiers. The elite Al-Quds force in Iran was (as the story goes) training Shi'ite groups within Iraq to attack American soldiers. Oh my! The only problem with this was the fact that most attacks against American soldiers had been happening from the Sunnis in Iraq. Not to worry, the American public seemed not to notice.
At almost the same time we (or, should I say, "Vice President Cheney") started this spin campaign against Iran, we also started trumpeting the fact that Al Anbar province in Iraq had stabilized because we had talked the sheiks who lived there into renouncing "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" (sometime referred to as "Al Qaeda in Iraq"), and to begin fighting on "our side."
This is a large part of the dog-and-pony show which will be the bedrock of the Petraeus report, come September: "We turned around the 'Sunni triangle' and we can turn around the whole country, given enough time."
But this ignores the sectarian reality on the ground. Arming the Sunnis in Iraq (which, you can be sure, was part of our agreement with the Sunni sheiks) is, in effect, trying to achieve some sort of parity in the ongoing civil war within the country. We are now, in essence, arming two sides of the civil war. Perhaps not equally, yet, as creating a mostly-Shi'ite Iraq Army and a completely-Shi'ite Iraqi police force means that arming a few sheiks and their Sunni followers still has a ways to go before achieving any sort of equilibrium.
But not to worry, as there is a third party to step into this void. At that party is the country run by those fast friends of the Bush family, the Saudis. They are extremely worried about Iran's increasing power in the region (which the United States donated to the Iranians, as a result of our wars), and the Saudis are fully capable of funding the Sunnis factions within Iraq.
Which the Saudis are, apparently, doing. The Los Angeles Times had a sobering article recently, which detailed Saudi Arabia's influence within Iraq. It begins:
Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.
Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.
He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.
The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
The problem casts a spotlight on the tangled web of alliances and enmities that underlie the political relations between Muslim nations and the U.S.
You think?
The U.S. government keeps yapping about EFPs from Iran, when fifty percent of all Saudi fighters in Iraq become suicide bombers, often also targeting American forces? Since we have used Iranian involvement in Iraq as a diplomatic lever, you would think are we using Saudi involvement in Iraq as a lever as well, to prod the government into action, no?
Unfortunately, we are doing quite the opposite. We are actually rewarding the Saudis for such actions. To the tune of $20 billion, in new military sales. That's billion with-a-B. Hopefully, wiser heads in Congress will prevail, but the idea itself is extraordinary -- let's reward bad behavior by selling technological military advances to the regime in charge.
Compare our actions towards Iran and towards Saudi Arabia, and it seems obvious that we've "cut and run" from the plan to keep Shi'ites in charge in Iraq. This does not bode well for Maliki, it should be noted.
But just because we've alienated both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites in Iraq, that doesn't mean we can't also upset the apple cart of our only success story in the country to date: the Kurds in the north of the country.
We have long succored the Kurds. The Kurdish region in Iraq is about the only place American soldiers can walk around without fear of imminent attack from the native populace. We have cultivated this relationship for a long time, and it is paying off dividends in many ways.
Unfortunately, we're about to chuck all of that out the window. If Robert Novak is right, the U.S. military (with U.S. Special Forces) is about to aid the Turkish government in suppressing the Kurdish minority in Turkey, which holds cross-border consequences for our allies, the Kurds in Iraq.
The Kurds in Iraq are going to consider this a betrayal, and a sell-out by the American government.
And so, we will have enraged every single faction in Iraq, even the only one which liked us to begin with.
While most pundits will be focused this September on such tactical yet is the strategic big picture. And in the immortal terminology from Vietnam, it can only be described as: a "clusterfuck."
>And in the immortal terminology from Vietnam,
>it can only be described as: a "clusterfuck."
That about sums things up perfectly.. :^/
Kudos to you for not falling into the "Lets-Bash-The-Iraqi-
Government-For-Taking-A-Vacation-But-Ignore-The-Fact-
That-Our-Own-Government-Is-Doing-The-Same-Thing"
trap.
But, to counter all the gloom and doom, the death toll of US soldiers in July is the LOWEST it has been in 8 months..
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070731/D8QNPVAG0.html
More evidence that the surge IS working and that the Democrat's worst nightmare (that the US might actually "win" in Iraq) may be heralded...
I am sure that EVERYONE here, without exception, truly wants the US to win in Iraq...
Right???
Michale.....
Hi Chris,
I would like to see the Iraqi people be the "winners" in this instance but I am not very hopeful.
....Stan
Chris,
You pretty much nailed it on this one...
And Michale,
If you would actually DO some research you'd see that EVERY year there was a lull in violence during the month of July... which means you can attribute a very small part of the "surge" to the decrease in violence.
Michael,
Cite your source for the info that "every year there is a lull in violence in the month of July".
While you are at it, I am still waiting for your source that the revolutionary fighters that beget the United States Of America were actually terrorists...
I'll be standing by...
Michale.....
Michale,
I'm SURE you want sources... too bad you NEVER even post facts, much less SOURCES... as I have.
For now... take it that I'm right... or... start posting facts AND sources yourself.
Better yet... just learn what google is...
In other words, you are just stating your opinion and have no real information to back up what you posted..
That's kewl.. That is part of what this forum is all about, after all.
However, suffice it to say that I have proven that this July is the lowest casualty count in 8 months which does support the contention that the surge IS working.
But, let's actually look at the casualty count by month, shall we??
Looking at the info given here:
http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx
we see that actually MARCH appears to be the month were low casualty counts are experienced. In July of 06 there were 43 US fatalities, yet Mar of 06 saw 31 US Fatalities. In 05, July had 54 US Fatalities, but again, we saw 35 US Fatalities in March of 05..
In 2004 July had 54 and March had 52. 2003 was the only year where July's count was lower than March's count. But this can easily be attributed to the fact that the war started in March of 2003 so the casualty count would, naturally, be higher..
So, given these FACTS, I have to call *BULLSHIT* on your claim that "EVERY year there was a lull in violence during the month of July". This also calls into question your claim that "you can attribute a very small part of the "surge" to the decrease in violence.."
You (and the Democratic Party) needs to come to grips with the idea that General Petraeus' Sept report just might be a real indication that we can win in Iraq.
And, of course, everyone here is firmly behind the goal of the US winning in Iraq, right??
No one here really wants the US to lose, right??
Right??
Strange how this forum goes silent when asked this question, eh??
One really has to wonder who's side some of you people are on..
Are you with US?? Or are you cheering on the terrorists???
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
No one here really wants the US to lose, right??
Right??
---------
Apparently.
9/11 was a dream come true for the administration. It gave them the opportunity to pursue a plan they had been working on long before they were even elected.
Tracking down Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?
No, the Bush family and Bin Laden family have been close friends for decades.
They made a show like that's what they were going to do, but that seems to have been staging for the big plan. The invasion of Iraq (or is it Iran, with Iraq just being secondary staging).
Meanwhile, the CIA trained Bin Laden also had a big plan. One he'd been working on long before Bush was even elected.
Destroying the WTC?
No, that was small potatoes, a single battle, staging for the big plan. Lure America into invading Iraq, secondary staging. Bleed America dry financially and militarily.
So here we have these longtime friends making each other's dreams come true. Which one is with us? Which one wants to see America Lose? Why are they both apparently pursuing the same goals? Why would Bush want to destroy his own country.
That's right, Bush is moving to Paraguay!
So are the one's cheering Bush on, to continue hemorrhaging cash and military in pursuit of Bin Laden's dreams the ones who want us to win? Or is it the majority of Americans, the majority of the world who want to stop America's bleeding, that are interested in what's good for America. This is not some game of checkers where the winner and loser can play again after dinner. Everyone playing this game loses, the only way to win is to stop playing.
But hey, bheer Bush on, Bin Laden appreciates you for it.
CDub..
So, do you want the US to succeed in Iraq?? Or do you want the terrorists to win??
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
CDub..
So, do you want the US to succeed in Iraq?? Or do you want the terrorists to win??
Michale…..
------------
These are not opposite sides of the same coin.
Go back and read my prior post again then see if you can refine your question.
So, you are saying that the US are the terrorists here..
OK, thanx Rosie...
Remind me again, exactly how you are NOT partisan..
I won't even bother to ask you to PROVE any of your wild accusations, because I know that that would be impossible..
You appear to be simply another Bush Basher.. Along the lines of those who think that Bush colluded with the Israeli Mossad, the US CIA and the Girl Scouts to commit the 9/11 attacks... :^/
Michale.....
Once again, I point out, Michale:
Only one of us here is qualified to voice my opinion.
Only one of us here is blindly partisan.
Go back, read again ... nevermind.
As long as you concede that you are voicing an opinion, rather than facts, then we are in complete agreement..
As to the other, I agree completely. It *IS* readily apparent to all who is being blindly partisan....
Beware dem Girl Scouts.. They are vicious.. :D
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
As long as you concede that you are voicing an opinion, rather than facts, then we are in complete agreement..
--------
The only thing I will concede is that when you try to reframe what I've said, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
So, please feel free to clarify..
Are you voicing your opinion as you stated or are you voicing fact?
I realize that being intentionally ambiguous is attractive, as you never have to stand behind what you say..
I prefer more direct discussions. Say what you mean and mean what you say.. Quit with mealy-mouth half-claims and ambiguous statements that could mean anything, depending which way the political wind blows..
It's really easy..
Do you feel that the US is a terrorist nation? Yes or no??
Do you feel that the US troops in Iraq are terrorists? Yes or no??
Do you feel that the Al Qaeda terrorists are morally and ethically in the right? Yes or no??
The fact that you are reluctant to directly answer these questions is almost an answer in itself..
You ever see CRIMSON TIDE? You remind me of Denzel.. "Complicated".... :D
Let me show you how it's done. It's really easy..
Do I think the US is a terrorist nation?
Hell no!
Do I think that the US forces in Iraq are terrorists.
Hell no!!
Do I think that the Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are morally and ethically in the right?
Hell no!!
You see how easy that is?? Straight and direct answers to straight and direct questions...
You think you can hang??? :D
Michale.....
Damn, does this mean I have to stop buying Girl Scout cookies?!?
-CW
Michale wrote:
> So, please feel free to clarify..
----------
I always feel free, I'm a free man in a free country.
> Are you voicing your opinion as you stated or are > you voicing fact?
>
Everything followed by a question mark, and the statement "Apparently" were food for thought.
The sentence that ends, "... what's good for America." Should have ended with a question mark.
The statement, "Everyone playing this game loses, the only way to win is to stop playing.", is my opinion.
Everything else there is established fact to fuel the food for thought.
> I realize that being intentionally ambiguous is
> attractive, as you never have to stand behind what
> you say..
>
I have no problem standing behind what I say, other than the fact that 'cheer' is not spelled 'bheer', and there's a thimble full of punctuation I wish I'd inserted, I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
> I prefer more direct discussions. Say what you
> mean and mean what you say.. Quit with mealy-mouth
> half-claims and ambiguous statements that could
> mean anything, depending which way the political
> wind blows..
>
Well if you want to get rude, knock yourself out.
> It's really easy..
> Do you feel that the US is a terrorist nation? Yes
> or no??
> Do you feel that the US troops in Iraq are
> terrorists? Yes or no??
> Do you feel that the Al Qaeda terrorists are
> morally and ethically in the right? Yes or no??
> The fact that you are reluctant to directly answer
> these questions is almost an answer in itself..
>
That's one telling thing about your "preference for direct discussions". You claim as FACT my reluctance to answer your questions, when you haven't even finished typing the post which poses those questions. My OPINION is that you're really not interested in discussion at all, you're trying to be a bully backed up by facts that aren't in evidence. But as I've said, if you want to be rude, knock yourself out.
> You ever see CRIMSON TIDE? You remind me of
> Denzel.. "Complicated"…. :D
>
Never have, not really interested, but Denzel? I'll take that as a compliment.
> Let me show you how it's done. It's really easy..
> Do I think the US is a terrorist nation?
> Hell no!
> Do I think that the US forces in Iraq are
> terrorists.
> Hell no!!
> Do I think that the Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq
> are morally and ethically in the right?
> Hell no!!
> You see how easy that is?? Straight and direct
> answers to straight and direct questions…
>
Sure it's simple, if you want simplistic opinions to complicated questions.
In my opinion, anyone who answers yes to those questions isn't paying attention, and anyone who answers no to those questions isn't paying attention.
In my opinion, the questions are very good, and worth the time to find truthful answers. This would take cool minds some serious research time to find the truth. But in my opinion, anyone who answers all three questions, "Hell No!!", is probably not interested in the truth.
> You think you can hang??? :D
>
Oh yeah, but you're looking to pick a fight, I have better things to do, but hey, knock yourself out.
Michale…..
@CW
>Damn, does this mean I have to stop
>buying Girl Scout cookies?!?
I think proceeds from the minty ones still go to supporting the Girl Scouts.
But the proceeds from the Nutter Butters go straight to Al Qaeda.. You have been warned.. :D
@CDub
Once again, you fail to answer three simple and direct questions.
But even in your non-answers,in your avoidance of the obvious, you are giving information.
Your response indicates that you believe that the US is possibly a terrorist nation. That the US troops possibly could be terrorists.. That it is possible that the Al Qeada terrorists in Iraq are morally and ethically in the right..
As I said, even in your evasive non-answers, you are giving answers..
Let's try something a little more simple..
Is water wet?
Is the sky blue?
Does Christmas fall on the 25th of December?
Michale.....
Hell, I give you an even EASIER question... It's really a no-brainer to any sentient life form with even the minutest modicum of decency and morality...
Is the use of terrorism ever justified?
Michale.....
Michale,
Ok... so you need reading comprehension as well.
I said, there is a LULL in July... not that July is THE least deadly month. Can I suggest English as a second language?
By your own posted chart, March April and May show spikes, and then lulls going to July EVERY year.
Yes, Michael..
Maybe next we can discuss what the meaning of "is" is... :^/ You still haven't posted your source for your alleged "lull" which I have proven doesn't exist..
Let me ask you a question.. How can you claim that March shows "spikes" when I have proven that, with the exception of Mar of 2003, March has produced the LEAST casualties of the year..
Face it.. You are so prejudiced and partisan that you simply cannot conceive nor will you even CONCEDE the possibility that the US will be able to prevail in Iraq.. In fact, you are HOPING that the US will fail, just so you can gloat.. Your bigotry blinds you to the most elementary of facts, as evidenced by the fact you claim March has a spike in casualties when the fact is, March has the FEWEST casualties of the year, with one exception.
In that, you are being a typical Democrat. The Democrats in Congress are WITHHOLDING needed Iraq related legislation, JUST TO SCORE POLITICAL POINTS...
How sad it is that Americans are actively working against US interests and HOPING that the US will fail...
If you hate your country so much, why are you still here??
Michale.....
But, why don't you take a crack at the very simple and very basic question I asked CDub..
Do you think that terrorism is EVER justified??? It's a simple YES or NO question.
Have at it...
Michale.....
If you wanted to know the capacitance per foot of a particular type coaxial cable, would you demand an answer from a truck driver, or would you do some research?
If you wanted to know the annual rainfall in India, would you demand an answer from a waitress, or would you do some research?
So for most of your questions, what are you asking me for? My opinion? What relevance would that have to the facts?
As for the questions I'm qualified to answer with actual facts:
Is water wet?
Of course that varies with temperature, but if we assume 25 degrees celsius: Given it's surface tension, yes. It's a fairly wet liquid, as opposed to mercury which is possibly the the driest liquid known to man. The differences in wetter and drier liquids can be observed at the meniscus where they meet an object upon which they might impart wetness.
Is the sky blue?
No, the color of the sky is an illusion caused by available light reflecting and refracting through whatever happens to be occupying the atmosphere at any location at any moment. So though the sky is colorless, most observers have witnessed the sky exhibiting every color of the rainbow at some time.
Does Christmas fall on the 25th of December?
If by Christmas you're talking about the birthday of Jesus, not very likely. Since all we know of Jesus was written by people many decades after his supposed death, all we have is hearsay from people who likely never met him, assuming he ever actually existed in the first place. Compound this with the fact that what we know of Jesus has been edited and interpreted by many unknown hands through almost 2000 years, so anyone who claims to know, is guessing at best.
If by Christmas you're referring to the holiday meant to represent Jesus' birthday, In my country, throughout my lifetime it's always been observed on Dec 25th, though I think historically worldwide, it's been adjusted for various reasons throughout the centuries.
Is the use of terrorism ever justified?
I've never thought so, but I'm pretty much unqualified to answer, since I've never been involved in terrorism. The facts of this matter would have to be judged in the light of all uses of terrorism, and how each was justified. And I know little about the subject, but it's amazing what a little research might net YOU (and I say that in all caps, because if you want the truth, you'll have to find it). Here's what the slightest scratching of the researchable surface netted me:
Reagan was proud to call himself a Contra.
His administration felt so strongly about arming and training and supporting what was left of the dictator Somoza's military, that they willingly broke U.S. and international laws to make that happen. This is not conjecture, many were convicted in US courts, though later pardoned by the next president, former vice president G.H.W. Bush. The US government was successfully sued in the international court of prosecuting an "illegal terrorist war" (quoting the judge) The US government never paid the 17 billion in reparations that were ordered, despite two nearly unanimous UN resolutions that the reparations must be paid (The US and Israel being the only two countries to vote against both resolutions).
The contras (or 'freedom fighters' as the administration loved to call them) successfully brought an end to the popular Sandanista government despite never winning a battle against the Sandanista military. How did they do it? By simply attacking hospitals, schools, churches etc. and killing doctors, nurses, lawyers, engineers, priests, nuns, anyone with an education. Once the government was devoid of those serving the populace, the contras went after unarmed civilians until enough of them were dead that the rest gave up. The government of Nicaragua has been backed by the US government ever since.
If you'd like a few research assignments, try to find out if there's any armed faction in and around Darfur that isn't receiving arms and training from the US government (not the people who are the victims of what G W Bush calls genocide, they're unarmed, and we're not helping them).
Try to find out what the US military presence is doing in Paraguay. Try to find out if there are any south American governments that don't have a US presence.
And finally, was it justified for the US government to give smallpox virus infested blankets to the indians? (Possibly our first foray into biological warfare, possibly not, research that too for extra credit).
In other words, you are completely incapable of giving a simple YES or NO answer to a simple YES or NO question..
Like a typical Democrat, you want to debate things to death, even while the house is burning around you.
"Well, is the house REALLY burning?? How hot are the flames??? What was the accelerant used. Does the house insurance cover fire damage??"
A very simple question like, "Is the use of terrorism is EVER justified" and you can't even answer that..
That tells me alot.. It really does.
Thanx...
Michale.....
My answer couldn't have been clearer.
"Is the use of terrorism is EVER justified"
I've never thought so, but apparently the US government has thought so, having used terrorist tactics for centuries the world over, and to this very day.
Now when will you answer my questions?
Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath, you're not interested in the answers, just attacking me personally. And you don't even know me. That tells me a lot ... it really does.
PS, Michale,
The fact that you refer to your questions as 'Yes or No' questions makes it clear that you're not interested in the facts, you're interested in my opinions, and my opinions are irrelevant to the facts. So why are you asking me for irrelevant information?
Yes, I am interested in your opinions.. It tells me the kind of person I am dealing with..
Note, I am not interested in your interpretation of what the US Government has or has not thought. I dare say that I am much more familiar with that issue than you are..
I want to know if YOU think that terrorism is ever justified..
The fact that you are tap-dancing so vigorously around this issue tells me much...
Michale.....
When it comes to questions of responsibility, I have two questions:
Whose fault is it?
Whose problem is it?
These are the two parties responsible to find solutions, or learn to live with the problem.
It's not unusual, as in this case, to find that the responsible parties are one in the same.
Whose fault is it that your complex questions require simple answers? Clearly yours, they're your questions and you're the one who thinks a correct answer is less than 4 characters long.
Whose problem is it that you need these simplistic answers to complex questions? Clearly yours. You're using every kind of intimidation tactic you can muster to obtain these answers, while I on the other hand am having no difficulty expressing my opinions.
So if you're interested in my opinions, that's a shame. That's not my problem, and it's not my fault.
Good luck though in your research. You have some good questions, and I encourage you to find answers.
Now when are you going to answer my questions? If you answered, not my fault, not my problem ... good for you. Good questions though, eh?
Here are a couple simple questions very few people answer correctly:
Which weighs more, and ounce of popcorn or an ounce of gold?
Which weighs more, a pound of nails or a pound of silver?
PS #2
My answers to:
"Is water wet?"
"Is the sky blue?"
Would have each earned me an A in science class. And you thought the correct answer to each was "yes".
The timer's started on the popcorn, don't let it burn.
CDub,
What's the definition of "is"??
Thank you for proving my point that those on the Left are incapable of taking a stand, making a decision or running a country..
Michale.....
Michale,
Why should I post what you have already posted? DUH!
Go May June July 2003 - May was a spike, July a lull
Go May June July 2004 - same thing
Go May June July 2005 - same thing
Go May June July 2006 - same thing
See a trend here?
4 years straight July was a lull... and you want to sit and tout the surge as the cause of THIS lull.
And once again, you go to the whole "attack the person" meme. You've been wrong so often, I'm starting to wonder if you are William Kristol.
Not to mention that this July had the highest of death toll of any July so far.
The Daily KOS
The epitome of "democracy" and free speech...
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/soldier_censored_at_kos_conven.php
Michael,
You said MARCH was the spike... Now you are changing your tune...
When you make up your mind as to which story you are going to put forth, let me know..
But I have to say, at least you TAKE a stand. You may be wrong at every juncture, but at least you don't waffle on every point and issue..
Michale.....
CDub -
Interesting answers to (supposedly) easy questions.
Christmas probably isn't the birthdate of Jesus Christ (assuming for the sake of argument that he existed and the Bible tells an accurate story... both large suppositions, but for the sake of argument...) the "shepherds were in the fields tending to their flocks." That could only have meant spring or fall (ask a shepherd).
The historical Christmas holiday (like many Christian holidays) fell on what was previously a pagan holiday -- the winter solstace. The early Church solved two birds with one stone -- they took pagan holidays that the populace was fond of celebrating, filed off the serial numbers, and proclaimed Christian holidays on the same date. That way, the peasants could still frolic on their feasting day, and the Church could tack a Christian meaning onto it. If you don't believe me, then check the history of why rabbits and eggs are still used to symbolize Easter. Christmas was initially the celebration of midwinter, or the winter solstace. So why is it roughly four days off? Blame the Julian calendar. When they pasted Christmas onto the solstace, Dec. 25th WAS the solstace. The Julian calendar isn't all that accurate, and so over the centuries the solstace moved, but Christmas did not. When the Gregorian calendar was started, everyone was so used to celebrating on 12/25, and so few remained who celebrated the solstace, that there wasn't any problem with leaving the date alone.
As for terrorism -- you and Michale are never going to agree on this because it all depends on how you define "terrorism." Ronald Reagan famously said "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," remember. Depending on your definition, the American revolutionaries were "terrorists" (the British certainly defined them as such) because, for this reason and others: they fought like the Indians did -- from behind walls and trees -- and not like the British did (where you just lined up across a field from each other and shot at the other team). Part of the Bush "War on Terror" means that they get to define the word however they choose. The media are finally slowly awakening to this fact, but I think it's probably too late.
And finally, while researching a column a long time ago, I found out that the concept of biowar started in like the 1400s. Some city was being beseiged in Europe, and they got the bright idea to catapult the bodies of people who had died of plague into the city, spreading the disease within the city walls.
But the first incident of the smallpox blankets was before we were a country, and was done by the British military. Americans may have later used the trick, but it was thought up by a guy we thought so highly of we named a town and a prestigious university after him. Google the name "Amherst" to find the facts.
-CW
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
With all due deference to Ronald Reagan, who was possibly the greatest American President we have had to date, he is very much wrong with the above statement.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
But you are correct in your assessment that it does depend on how one defines terrorism.
This is the definition I follow:
Terrorism is the intentional and calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) directly targeted against innocent people for the expressed purpose of attaining goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature.
I think we all can agree that that is an acceptable definition of Terrorism.
Given that, any person or organization that resorts to terrorism to achieve their goals immediately negates the moral or ethical value of their goal.
HAMAS in Lebanon is a perfect example. It is undeniable that the organization of HAMAS has done some great things for the people of Lebanon. Schools, clinics and other benefits are part of the Lebanonese society, due in a large part to the efforts of HAMAS.
However, because HAMAS routinely resorts to terrorism, all the good that they have accomplished is negated..
HAMAS is a terrorist group. Despite all the good that they have done for their people, they are still nothing but a terrorist group...
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist...
A terrorist cannot be a freedom fighter..
A terrorist cannot be a humanitarian.
A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist...
It's really THAT simple...
Michale...
Michale wrote:
Terrorism is the intentional and calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) directly targeted against innocent people for the expressed purpose of attaining goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature.
--------
At first glance, I would modify this definition slightly
Terrorism is the intentional and calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) directly targeted against innocent people for the express purpose of attaining goals that are political, religious, ideological or ECONOMIC in nature.
In fact, my opinion is that most terrorist acts are to achieve economic goals. They are often sold to citizens and soldiers as being political, religious or ideologic, but that's just the lipstick on the pig. The people fighting and dying on both sides of terrorist acts believe in some noble goal. The people who actually benefit economically from terrorist acts are living high on the hog and paying the talking heads to say things like, "They hate us for our freedoms".
I would agree with your addition..
So, now we have common ground.. The definition of terrorism..
Given that we agree on the definition of terrorism, it would follow that you have to agree that US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT committing terrorism, as US forces do not intentionally target innocent people...
Michale......
Michale,
Truly... check into English as a second language.
I said March April and May show spikes every year.
Now... go back to your OWN CHART.
March and April 2003 showed a spike and then July was the lull.
March and April 2004 was spiking UPWARDS to May.
April 2005 started the spike to May.
April 2006 started the spike to May.
Now... once again... March April and May showed the spikes EVERY YEAR... and July was a lull EVERY YEAR.
As for your "pajama media" censoring a soldier... (sorry, laughing my ass off here)... can you get any more pathetic in your attempt to paint Kos as a hate site?????
The soldier showed up to the convention... IN UNIFORM... to make a POLITICAL STATEMENT and had been taken aside by Gen. Wesley Clark and asked very quietly to NOT try and be political while wearing the uniform (which is against regulations and DoD directives). The video you show (which is the EXACT video that the RIGHT is trying to use as some vindication... ie... YOU Michale)... was from the SECOND day when the same soldier returned... IN UNIFORM a SECOND TIME... and tried to crash the convention. Censoring????? Hardly! You had a soldier basically try to lecture a retired General and a panel of VETERANS, and OFFICERS to boot, on what it meant to SERVE their country!
But, I wouldn't expect a right-wing apologist to actually get facts correct.
So, you concede that the soldier was censored..
So much for the first amendment at Kos, right?? :^/ Don't forget, this is the same site that booted off that looney, Cindy Sheehan.
So, obviously the hate site KOS believes in Free Speech.. But only as long as you say what KOS wants to hear..
Tell me, young one.. How does that differ from the GOP censorship that you always whine and moan about..
While you are at it, please explain to me how March can be the LOWEST in casualities for the year, yet still be a "spike"... It's simply not possible.
Why not just be adult about it and concede you got caught exxagerating with your "July is always a lull" claim..
Face facts...
The surge in Iraq IS working.. FACT
The Democrats are concerned that the US might prevail in Iraq.. FACT
Three different commissions (2 US bi-partisan and one UK) determined that Bush did not lie in the run-up to Iraq.. FACT
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
As for being a right wing apologist, you obviously have read all the comments here on CW's forum.. With the exception of my patriotic support for my country during a time of war (something you apparently lack), there is NOTHING about me that is right-wing...
So, you will have to try harder to pin that label on me.. Because it just won't fit...
Michale.....
Michale,
Oh... so many points to refute...
"So, you concede that the soldier was censored.."
No... I "concede" that the soldier was a blooming idiot who couldn't listen the FIRST time he was told to NOT wear his uniform while trying to be political and he got EXACTLY what he deserved the SECOND TIME.
"While you are at it, please explain to me how March can be the LOWEST in casualities for the year, yet still be a "spike"… It's simply not possible."
And once again.. you just don't understand the English language. You AGAIN pick ONE month trying to make a point I've already refuted, explained, and SHOWN you to be true... but, you're a good right-wing troll... you just don't let FACTS stand in your way.
"Why not just be adult about it and concede you got caught exxagerating with your "July is always a lull" claim.."
Ummm... for the simple FACT.. that July IS a LULL... and has been.. EVERY YEAR.. BY YOUR OWN POSTED CHART.
And when you LEARN to speak English, you'll learn A LULL is not the same as THE LULL... but, you're just an idiot troll who has already done contortions with your own arguments.
"The Democrats are concerned that the US might prevail in Iraq.. FACT"
Not "fact". Supposition. Hope on your part. A very demented Republican talking point most assuredly.
We invaded in 2003. It is 2007 going on 2008. There is no "victory" to win. We have alienated the vast majority of Iraqi's. You know how I know? Because I've been to Iraq... TWICE you troll. While you are here spouting Republican talking points, I was IN Iraq in 2006... and I went from Al-Faw to Talil, to Balad, to Tikrit... and I TALKED to Iraqi citizens. So don't sit here telling me your talking points. I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT IRAQ IS LOST.
"As for being a right wing apologist, you obviously have read all the comments here on CW's forum.. With the exception of my patriotic support for my country during a time of war (something you apparently lack), there is NOTHING about me that is right-wing…"
Oh yes... your "patriotic" support... excuse me while I puke!
Get into a uniform and go fight that war you want. Go on. I'm ALREADY TALKING TO THE GUARD. What is YOUR excuse other then being a republican troll on as many democratic blogs as you can be on... probably for $8/hr.
Son, I have done my stint for king and country. Both as military (USAF and a US Army EllTee) and as a civilian FSO (Federal Security Officer) spanning close to 25 years.
The fact that you are "talking to the Guard" indicates to me that you are quite young and therefore do not have the life experiences to back up what you are saying.
Read the SCANDAL FATIGUE commentary here:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/07/31/scandal-fatigue/#comments
and then come back and explain how I can be a "Republican troll" when I disagree with the Right on every issue sans one...
Like your "March has spikes" comment, it simply isn't possible..
Michale.....
Here are some more FACTS for you..
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QRMCU00&show_article=1
Analysis: Military Shows Gains in Iraq
"The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.
In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground and interviewing commanders, strategists and intelligence officers, it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year."
Michale.....
As to the KOS censorship, you can bet your booty that if that soldier had been wanting to speak out AGAINST the war you (and KOS) would have welcomed him with open arms, uniform and all.. ESPECIALLY in uniform..
That's the truth so don't bother denying it.
Such is the hypocrisy of KOS in particular and the Left in general...
Michale.....
Doesn't look good for the America Bashing crowd..
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/08/beauchamp_recants.asp
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
Given that we agree on the definition of terrorism, it would follow that you have to agree that US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT committing terrorism, as US forces do not intentionally target innocent people…
--------
That does not follow. A handful of soldiers have already been convicted in US military courts of terrorist atrocities committed in Iraq. The fact that the military only takes action against these types of crimes when they can't sweep them under the rug suggests that the few convictions are the tip of an iceberg whose dimensions will never be known. I'm not suggesting that all, or even most soldiers would knowingly kill civilians, but I doubt many of them are confused about how hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died since Mar. 2003.
The war itself qualifies as an illegal war, unprovoked aggression is a war crime. So is a war crime a terrorist act? The sad answer is Yes.
Thanks to all for a lively debate.
This post has gotten the most comments of anything I've written to date (47, counting this one).
But, following my general policy of "2-3 weeks is all you get," I now am closing the comments for this article.
Sorry, Michale, CDub got the last word in!
-CW