The surge is working!

[swake]

Or maybe not:

Doubts About Doomsday
The president is suggesting that a troop withdrawal would turn Iraq into a battleground between regional powers. Not so, says a senior administration official.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316590/site/newsweek/

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

When one is reading the posts in order for them to understand why we are in an undeclared war in violation of our obligations to the ME and the world.  We are bombing the women and children telling them they are our enemies.

We should be looking to 20 years from now when we will face the same conduct by other armies.

51% of the females are not married.

The are getting the higher percentages of collage degrees.

On the moral scale they have taken over the obligations that once was restricted to marriage.

They have the pill.

Abortion on demand.

Immigrants are having babies and filling our schools.

In twenty years the US army will have passed with the days of the Gentiles.  

Can we loose face if we get out of the ME and start now to prepare the phantom army to defend our own homeland?   It is easy like when the Roman army left England.  

[iplaw]

The question of a regional war is an important one, but not the only concern on the table.  We also have active Al-Qaeda involvement, and they aren't going to leave of their own volition.

Several on here have claimed that Iraq was a distraction from Al-Qaeda, which it was not, but be that as it may, they are active in Iraq as we speak.

Even though the story mentions that their safe haven is Pakistan, which no one can confirm obviously, we still have letters from their leadership which we have intercepted that clearly state their opposition to both Shia led Iranian elements and their own Sunni constituency which happens not to be Sunni enough for them.

Al-Qaeda has made their intentions clear on the subject of Iraq and the further establishment of a Caliphate on Iraqi soil.  The only question is will we ignore them again?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Or maybe not:

Doubts About Doomsday
The president is suggesting that a troop withdrawal would turn Iraq into a battleground between regional powers. Not so, says a senior administration official.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316590/site/newsweek/

"One senior administration official with extensive knowledge of the region, who didn't want to be identified discussing sensitive policy matters, tells NEWSWEEK that the chances of a regional war in Iraq are low in the event of a U.S. withdrawal. When asked if a regional war would break out, the official said: "Possibly, not probably. It's more likely that other powers would support their favorite militias, as they're doing already."'

Huh?!?  Sounds like chaos to me.  That's typical "informing" the public with headlines.  It's the perfect illustration of the frequent point I make that most people don't read beyond the headline and first paragraph of a news story, and consider themselves well-informed.[B)]

Upon closer inspection of this article, this is nothing more than an op-ed piece cloaked as a hard news story.  That is how a whole lot of mis-information has been spread about this war.

[cannon_fodder]

Not to mention the fact that Bush is THE senior official - so what he says vs what another 'senior official' says... he wins.  It is almost certain that Iraq would become a regional conflict.  Not that the armies of Iran and Saud will come marching in... HOWEVER, both Iran and Saudi Arabia are already supporting various armed factions in Iraq.  Certainly they would be more open and vigilant in their support in an ever escalating cycle.  We call that a proxy war.  It usually doesnt end well for the country (see Vietnam, Afghanistan, North Korea).
----

Shadows:

You have totally lost it.  I have no idea what the war in Iraq has to do with women's graduation rate from college nor that they arent bare foot and pregnant getting me a beer.  Who cares?  Not to mention the marriage rate of 60% is higher than most countries and against your state rate.  And what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?  Does your religion require women to serve as baby factories?

What have you dont that is so fantastic that you posses THE right answer for life.  How are you so damn righteous?  I hope you are married and have at least 6 kids and refuse to use any form of birth control and dont allow your wife nor female offspring any form of education.  Apparently that is what your strict form of Judaism requires so you can cast your pointy finger upon us heathen Gentiles.  

Someone look to see if he posts on Saturdays.
----

Nationalization:

Iraq has nationalize its oil reserves in the same manner the USA has nationalize its offshore reserves.  That is to say, the oil belongs to the state.  They grant rights to the oil to a company who promises to extract the oil and pay the government for the right to try and do that.

The REVENUE SHARING agreement is between Iraqi faction (if you dont know the three, then you have no business in this thread).  It is not revenue sharing with companies.  

Full nationalization like Mexico would lead to a horribly inefficient operation.  Mexico does not utilize their oil reserves as well as America does - they dont as great a % per well, they cannot drill as deep, they cannot drill in as deep of water, and their environmental impact is at least 5 times of any operation under US regulation.  So if you want a dangerous, polluting, and less profitable oil sector you could always nationalize it.

Unless you are Iraq.  IRAQ DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES NOR EXPERTISE TO PRODUCE ITS OIL BY ITSELF.  They dont have the tens of billions needed nor the engineers, welders, and operators required to do the work.  Hell, even Saudi Arabia has mostly foreign workers in the oil fields.

Not only is pure nationalization a bad idea, in Iraq it cannot be done.  Yet another attempt to blame evil doer corporations for the worlds problems.  Ignoring the fact that corporations have ushered in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity not to mention unbelievable technological developments.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

...

Shadows is older than any two of you combined.  He's met Abe Lincoln personally, so I cut him a lot of slack, primarily by not reading.  And if I read, I don't comment.  You folks may yet some day be decent enough to do that, and stop being so insulting.

And the point was not about Nationalization, or corporations anyway.  You wanted to say how great it was that Iraq was going to make revenues off it's oil, and you went through making statements that were patently false to strengthen your pro-war, corporation-lust view.  Fantastic.  

quote:(if you dont know the three, then you have no business in this thread).

With statements like this, you have no business being in any intelligent discussion.  You want to "read me the riot act", be prepared.

[iplaw]

Nationalization aside, I still want to know what 20 year contracts you were talking about.

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Not to mention the fact that Bush is THE senior official - so what he says vs what another 'senior official' says... he wins.

I think this is the source of my angst and maybe others.  When you have a leader you don't trust, then why would you support more of the same?  It's hard to support a war when you don't believe the commander-in-chief is competent.

[Conan71]

An un-named source can be a figment of an un-ethical reporter's imagination.  Hell, the un-named Sr. Admin official with knowledge of the area could be a White House custodian who has worked there for 30 years and was born in Iraq.

If a reporter can't name names, it gives us no clue as to the credibility of the source other than the opinion of the journalist.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

An un-named source can be a figment of an un-ethical reporter's imagination.

[Conan71]

3rd coffee-spitting laugh... knock it off guys, my computer is about to short out []

[cannon_fodder]

I dont care how old Shadows is, nor do I care what school he went to, how much money he has, or if his father is a senator.  He continuously posts ignorant, misleading, and amazingly incoherent comments.  His comments seem more fit for a religous nut screaming at student on campus.  You are somehow better than I because instead of pointing this out you simply ignore him?  Some might argue that is a much harsher treatment.  

I tried, desperately, to discuss things rationally and with careful logic.  That was me cutting some slack and it didnt work.  He continues to spout forth his nonsense. If pointing out that his comments are nonsense, ignorant, usually wrong, and make him look like an idiot is somehow insulting then I guess he will have to be insulted.  It is nothing more than the truth.

What else, honestly, could you expect when you post "51% of the females are not married" or
"The are getting the higher percentages of collage degrees" or "In twenty years the US army will have passed with the days of the Gentiles" completely out of nowhere? If his thought process is so deteriorated that he cannot comprehend that this is an illogical and random posting of nonsense, then someone has to point it out to him.

quote:You wanted to say how great it was that Iraq was going to make revenues off it's oil, and you went through making statements that were patently false to strengthen your pro-war, corporation-lust view. Fantastic.

I tried to make an intelligent, educated, and well thought out point about the ongoing issues in Iraq.  Somehow, you deemed this an unintelligent contribution to the discussion. I'm interested to know:

What did I say that was patently false?  Where did I in any way insinuate in that comment that I thought the war was a good idea?  And why would I have sexual desire for corporations?  For that matter, when did I say that it was great that Iraq was going to make revenue off of its oil and why would it be bad if they did? I am happy that you think a pro-war view having a sexual desire for corporations is fantastic, but I fail to see what that has to do with me.

If you read the thread you would see that there was an ongoing discussion about what constitutes nationalization and if corporations can be a part of that.  Seems that corporations were very relevant to the conversation and a minimal part of my post to boot.

And lastly, if you do not know that the Kurds, Shia (Shiite) and Sunni's are vying for control of Iraq then you are in way over your head.  There is no way that someone without this base of knowledge should bother arguing about the geo political atmosphere in Iraq and whether nationalization of oil is the best course of action. It would be akin to my 7 year old arguing theoretical physics with Stephen Hawking. It was a comment made in jest assuming every literate person in the USA knows there are three groups vying for power in Iraq.  I suppose if you truly didnt know this then you might be embarrassed to yourself by your own ignorance... but I'm not sure how damaging that would be.
 
I've never had issue with you before nor chastised anyone that didn't deserve it, so I'm not sure where this is coming from.  I usually dont cower before threats over the internet, but if you consider this a 'reading of the riot act' make sure you let me know, so I can be properly prepared.

[Conan71]

I'm reading you all the riot act:

CUM PRIVILEGIO

Anno primo GEORGE I, Statute 2, Caption 5.
PAGES 142-146
An act for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the rioters.

I. Whereas of late many rebellious riots and tumults have been in divers parts of this kingdom, to the disturbance of the publick peace, and the endangering of his Majesty's person and government, and the same are yet continued and fomented by persons disaffected to his Majesty, presuming so to do, for that the punishments provided by the laws now in being are not adequate to such heinous offences; and by such rioters his Majesty and his administration have been most maliciously and falsly traduced, with an intent to raise divisions, and to alienate the affections of the people from his Majesty therefore for the preventing and suppressing of such riots and tumults, and for the more speedy and effectual punishing the offenders therein; be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and of the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That if any persons to the number of twelve or more, being unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the publick peace, at any time after the last day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and fifteen, and being required or commanded by any one or more justice or justices of the peace, or by the sheriff of the county, or his under-sheriff, or by the mayor, bailiff or bailiffs, or other head-officer, or justice of the peace of any city or town corporate, where such assembly shall be, by proclamation to be made in the King's name, in the form herin after directed, to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, shall, to the number of twelve or more (notwithstanding such proclamation made) unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously remain or continue together by the space of one hour after such command or request made by proclamation, that then such continuing together to the number of twelve or more, after such command or request made by proclamation, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in a case of felony without benefit of clergy.

II. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the order and form of the proclamation that shall be made by the authority of this act, shall be as hereafter followeth (that is to say) the justice of the peace, or other person authorized by this act to make the said proclamation shall, among the said rioters, or as near to them as he can safely come, with a loud voice command, or cause to be commanded silence to be, while proclamation is making, and after that, shall openly and with loud voice make or cause to be made proclamation in these words, or like in effect:

Our sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.

And every such justice and justices of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, and other head-officer aforesaid, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, are hereby authorized, impowered and required, on notice or knowledge of any such unlawful, riotous and tumultuous assembly, to resort to the place where such unlawful, riotous, and tumultuous assemblies shall be, of persons to the number of twelve or more, and there to make or cause to be made proclamation in manner aforesaid.

III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if such persons so unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, or twelve or more of them, after proclamation made in manner aforesaid, shall continue together and not disperse themselves within one hour, That then it shall and may be lawful to and for every justice of the peace, sheriff, or under-sheriff of the county where such assembly shall be, and also to and for every high or petty constable, and other peace-officer within such county, and also to and for every mayor, justice of the peace, sheriff, bailiff, and other head-officer, high or petty constable, and other peace-officer of any city or town corporate where such assembly shall be, and to and for such other person and persons as shall be commanded to be assisting unto any such justice of the peace, sheriff or under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, or other head-officer aforesaid (who are hereby authorized and impowered to command all his Majesty's subjects of age and ability to be assisting to them therein) to seize and apprehend, and they are hereby required to seize and apprehend such persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously continuing together after proclamation made, as aforesaid, and forthwith to carry the persons so apprehended before one or more of his Majesty's justices of the peace of the county or place where such persons shall be so apprehended, in order to their being proceeded against for such their offences according to law; and that if the persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, or any of them, shall happen to be killed, maimed or hurt, in the dispersing, seizing or apprehending, or endeavouring to disperse, seize or apprehend them, that then every such justice of the peace, sheriff, under-sheriff, mayor, bailiff, head-officer, high or petty constable, or other peace-officer, and all and singular persons, being aiding and assisting to them, or any of them, shall be free, discharged and indemnified, as well against the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, as against all and every other person and persons, of, for, or concerning the killing, maiming, or hurting of any such person or persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, that shall happen to be so killed, maimed or hurt, as aforesaid.

IV. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any persons unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled together, to the disturbance of the publick peace, shall unlawfully, and with force demolish or pull down, or begin to demolish or pull down any church or chapel, or any building for religious worship certified and registred according to the statute made in the first year of the reign of the late King William and Queen Mary, intituled, An act for exempting their Majesty's protestant subjects dissenting from the church of England from the penalties of certain laws, or any dwelling-house, barn, stable, or other out-house, that then every such demolishing, or pulling down, or beginning to demolish, or pull down, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy.

V. Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any person or persons do, or shall, with force and arms, wilfully and knowingly oppose, obstruct, or in any manner wilfully and knowingly lett, hinder, or hurt any person or persons that shall begin to proclaim, or go to proclaim according to the proclamation hereby directed to be made, whereby such proclamation shall not be made, that then every such apposing, obstructing, letting, hindering or hurting such person or persons, so beginning or going to make such proclamation, as aforesaid, shall be adjudged felony without benefit of clergy, and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy; and that also every such person or persons so being unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, to the number of twelve, as aforesaid, or more, to whom proclamation should or ought to have been made if the same had not been hindred, as aforesaid, shall likewise, in case they or any of them, to the number of twelve or more, shall continue together, and not disperse themselves within one hour after such lett or hindrance so made, having knowledge of such lett or hindrance so made, shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony, without benefit of clergy.

VI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if after the said last day of July one thousand seven hundred and fifteen, any such church or chapel, or any such building for religious worship, or any such dwelling-house, barn, stable, or other out-house, shall be demolished or pulled down wholly, or in part, by any persons so unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assembled, that then, in case such church, chapel, building for religious worship, dwelling-house, barn, stable, or out-house, shall be out of any city or town, that is either a county of itself, or is not within any hundred, that then the inhabitants of the hundred in which such damage shall be done, shall be liable to yield damages to the person or persons injured and damnified by such demolishing or pulling down wholly or in part; and such damages shall and may be recovered by action to be brought in any of his Majesty's courts of record at Westminster, (wherein no effoin, protection or wager of law, or any imparlance shall be allowed) by the person or persons damnified thereby, against any two or more of the inhabitants of such hundred, such action for damages to any church or chapel to be brought in the name of the rector, vicar or curate of such church or chapel that shall be so damnified, in trust for applying the damages to be recovered in rebuilding or repairing such church or chapel; and that judgment being given for the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such action, the damages so to be recovered shall, at the request of such plaintiff or plaintiffs, his or their executors or administrators, be raised and levied on the inhabitants of such hundred, and paid to such plaintiff or plaintiffs, in such manner and form, and by such ways and means, as are provided by the statute made in the seven and twentieth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for reimbursing the person or persons on whom any money recovered against any hundred by any party robbed, shall be levied: and in case any such church, chapel, building for religious worship, dwelling-house, barn, stable, or out-house so damnified, shall be in any city or town that is either a county of itself, or is not within any hundred, that then such damages shall and may be recovered by action to be brought in manner aforesaid (where no effoin, protection or wager of law, or any imparlance shall be allowed) against two or more inhabitants of such city or town; and judgment being given for the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such action, the damages so to be recovered shall, at the request of such plaintiff or plaintiffs, his or their executors or administrators, made to the justices of the peace of such city or town at any quarter-sessions to be holden for the said city or town, be raised and levied on the inhabitants of such city or town, and paid to such plaintiff or plaintiffs, in such manner and form, and by such ways and means, as are provided by the said statute made in the seven and twentieth year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for reimbursing the person or persons on whom any money recovered against any hundred by any party robbed, shall be levied.

VII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That this act shall be openly read at every quarter-session, and at every leet or law-day.

VIII. Provided always, That no person or persons shall be prosecuted by virtue of this act, for any offence or offences committed contrary to the same, unless such prosecution be commenced within twelve months after the offence committed.

IX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the sheriffs and their deputies, stewards and their deputies, bailies of regalities and their deputies, magistrates of royal boroughs, and all other inferior judges and magistrates, and also all high and petty constables, or other peace-officers of any county, stewartry, city or town, within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, shall have the same powers and authority for putting this present act in execution within Scotland, as the justices of the peace and other magistrates aforesaid, respectively have by virtue of this act, within and for the other parts of this kingdom; and that all and every person and persons who shall at any time be convicted of any the offences aforementioned, within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, shall for every such offence incur and suffer the pain of death, and confiscation of moveables: and also that all prosecutions for repairing the damages of any church or chapel, or any building for religious worship, or any dwelling-house, barn, stable or out-house, which shall be demolished or pulled down in whole or in part, within Scotland, by any persons unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, shall and may be recovered by summar action, at the instance of the party aggrieved, his or her heirs or executors, against the county, stewartry, city or borough respectively, where such disorders shall happen, the magistrates being summoned in the ordinary form, and the several counties and stewartries called by edictal citation at the market-cross of the head borough of such county or stewartry respectively, and that in general, without mentioning their names and designations.

X. Provided, and it is hereby declared, That this act shall extend to all places for religious worship, in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, which are tolerated by law, and where his majesty King George, the prince and princess of Wales, and their issue, are prayed for in express words.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I dont care how old Shadows is, nor do I care what school he went to,

Got it.  Cannon_fodder rule #1: Be a s***head to every elderly person you come in contact with.  Fair enough.

quote:I tried to make an intelligent, educated, and well thought out point about the ongoing issues in Iraq.  Somehow, you deemed this an unintelligent contribution to the discussion. I'm interested to know:

You didn't try very hard did you?

quote:Yet another attempt to blame evil doer corporations for the worlds problems. Ignoring the fact that corporations have ushered in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity not to mention unbelievable technological developments

Hippity dippity do.  Some internet guy calling me anti-corporation on the one hand, while simultaneously preaching the glorious past of corporate influence on peace.   More brilliance from the same guy that thinks Shadows has "lost it", and I have no business here.  

quote:And lastly, if you do not know that the Kurds, Shia (Shiite) and Sunni's are vying for control of Iraq then you are in way over your head.

And lastly, again, I'd take the Pepsi Challenge against any of you guys, especially the trollish ones, on who knows more about Iraq.  

But I just don't think we'll find out.  Of the three or four people that act like you CF, you're the least offensive.  And I'm beginning to simply not care whether or not you guys drive this forum towards becoming a wasteland.

[Conan71]

Weighing in as one of the more trollish than CF [}:)], I don't think anyone on this forum would know near as much as the military leaders who are running the show in Iraq.  Call them incompetent if you like, you are entitled to that opinion.  

I believe they know what they are doing, that's my opinion.  

The anti's can dig up articles to support their points so can the pro's.  

Sitting around talking about which layman on a forum "knows" more than another about Iraq is just a big D#$% contest, unless one of them  were General Petraus, that would pretty much trump all of us [].