The surge is working!

[iplaw]

quote:
How many Iraqis participated again and what did Saddam do to help?

None and nothing.

By what you are saying we should be at war in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not Iraq.

Morons.

Speaking of morons, I don't know anyone who could read what he said and conjure up a non-sequitor the way you did.  It's like you've got the reading comprehension and problem solving skills of a 5 year old.

Seems like you and Rwarn the only ones that can't understand that while 9/11 and Iraq are both independent issues, they both fall under the umbrella of the WOT.  It is not the War on Al-Qaeda, it's the War on Terror.  By your thinking we should ignore NK because they didn't attack us on 9/11.[xx(]

[rwarn17588]

You don't ignore North Korea, but you don't invade without 1) considering the consequences; or 2) without good planning, either.

Bush did neither when the U.S. invaded Iraq. That is beyond dispute. That's why we're in this mess today.

If you have a War on Terror, or whatever buzzword Washington is using this week, perhaps it would have been better to go after the 9/11 kingpins first before taking on more ambitious plans. That's common sense and proper priorities.

Hell, why don't we invade Pakistan? That country is lousy with al-Qaida and Taliban nutballs. Oh, that's right. It's because the consequences of a full-scale invasion would destabilize a huge area and place the U.S. military in a big quagmire.

Sound familiar?

[iplaw]

quote:You don't ignore North Korea, but you don't invade without 1) considering the consequences; or 2) without good planning, either.

Bush did neither when the U.S. invaded Iraq. That is beyond dispute. That's why we're in this mess today.

What you see today was inevitable.  There was nothing that could have been done to keep Al-Qaeda from inciting sectarian violence, other than to have removed Saddam 12 years earlier when the Taliban was non-starter.

No amount of troops could have prevented what we are seeing today as it is guerilla warfare, and troops aren't really that good at fighting that kind of war.  We're there right now to keep the nutjobs from killing civilians and from raping the oil fields.

quote:
If you have a War on Terror, or whatever buzzword Washington is using this week, perhaps it would have been better to go after the 9/11 kingpins first before taking on more ambitious plans. That's common sense and proper priorities.

For Christ' sake.  We did go after Al-Qaeda in the form of the Taliban.  2/3 of their leadership has been either imprisoned or killed, a number which is disputed by no one (other than you probably).  Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now, and rightly so.

quote:
Hell, why don't we invade Pakistan? That country is lousy with al-Qaida and Taliban nutballs. Oh, that's right. It's because the consequences of a full-scale invasion would destabilize a huge area and place the U.S. military in a big quagmire.

Yeah, just like the quagmire that was predicted by dingus' like you before we went into Afghanistan.  That has nothing to do with why we aren't invading Pakistan, but good try.

quote:
Sound familiar?

Nope, not really.

[swake]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084
Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'
by Mike Shuster
All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 • An Iraqi military spokesman has announced that heavy vehicles will be banned from crossing most of Baghdad's bridges. The ban appears to be designed to keep the bridges safe from suicide bombers; hundreds of suicide bombers have detonated their explosives in the four years of the Iraq war.
Suicide bombings have been used in various conflicts around the world since 1980. But never has the world seen such an enormous number of such attacks as in Iraq — at least 350, and likely more, since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
On April 12, a man smuggled a suicide vest inside the building housing Iraq's parliament in the Green Zone, the most fortified and protected area in all of Iraq. There are numerous checkpoints involving frisking, bomb-sniffing dogs and electronic sensors.
But somehow the bomber managed to get inside, and he detonated his bomb, killing himself and one member of parliament.
As such attacks go, the death toll was minor. Symbolically, though, the message was clear: suicide attackers can hit anywhere.
Now, as thousands of additional U.S. troops are being deployed to Baghdad's neighborhoods as part of the "surge" strategy, there has been an epidemic of suicide attacks. The bombers use cars, trucks. They can be on foot. They get very close to their targets, and their attacks are highly lethal — far more deadly than ordinary roadside bombs.
On April 18, a string of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, cut a swath of death and mayhem across Baghdad. Nearly 200 people were killed that day, 140 of them in one huge blast at the predominantly Shiite market in Sadriya, a neighborhood of north central Baghdad.
It's fair to say that the suicide bomber is the insurgency's most devastating weapon, yet there is precious little understanding of who orchestrates the attacks and what motivates the attackers.
Many attacks have taken place in markets and bus stations, killing thousands of civilians. Most of the civilians killed have been Shiites. Most if not all of the suicide attacks have been carried out by Sunni insurgents.
Last year, NPR conducted a short interview with a would-be suicide bomber, a teenage Iraqi girl.
"My name is Noor Abid Ghezal," she said in Arabic. "I am 18 years old. I am accused of terrorism; the attempted assassination of Hussein al-Sadr, the member of the parliament from Kadhimiya."
Speaking from a jail cell, Noor told a story laced with romance and deception, at once naive and bitter, reflecting just how ruthless and manipulative those who plan these attacks can be.
"I was a student," she said. "I only had my mother at home but she died. After that I fell in love with my stepmother's friend. I loved him and he loved me. I didn't know that he was such a bastard until later on."
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been at least 351 confirmed suicide bombings in Iraq. That number was supplied by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which maintains perhaps the world's most extensive database on suicide attacks.
Pape's data indicate that the pace of suicide bombing in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate.
"Before our invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide attack in its history," Pape said. "Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we've had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there."
Pape has looked closely at who conducts suicide bombing across the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, examining educational level and socio-economic background, among other factors. In many cases, the bombers relayed their rationale in their own words, after videotapes surfaced or their last words were posted on the Internet.
Pape concluded that suicide bombing is used primarily against forces that the attackers see as foreign occupiers or collaborators.
Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.
But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.
Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq.
Pape has not found one confirmed instance of a Shiite suicide bomber in the Iraq conflict.
Of the targets, more than 50 percent were military. Civilian targets accounted for more than 30 percent last year.
In the case of Noor, her boyfriend wanted her to kill a Shiite member of parliament.
"He turned out to work with a terrorist group," Noor said. "He introduced me to another group of men. They were terrorists, but I didn't realize this. They entrapped me, and here I am in prison."
In the interview with her last year, Noor did not explain why she did not go through with the bombing, or how one of her handlers was seized when she was arrested. Sometimes those who accompany the bomber actually detonate the bomb remotely, but that was not how it worked in Noor's case.
"So I was sentenced to seven years in prison," she said. "One and a half are done."
In fact, Iraq's prisons, those maintained by the Iraqi government and the detainee camps that the United States has run since 2003, may be the source of future suicide bombers.
The worst abuses — like those that occurred in Abu Ghraib — may have largely been curtailed.
But many Sunnis believe that prisoners are still abused and that makes the prisoners easy recruits for the insurgency.
"The prisons are only incubating these people," said Selim Abdullah, spokesman for the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Speaking in Arabic, he said, "An innocent person who enters prison for three years without knowing why he is there will be an easy tool for them. When he gets released, he becomes one of those who follow the criminal path."
Hundreds of bombers have already sacrificed their lives in suicide attacks in Iraq. Yet it seems that the supply of future suicide bombers gets larger and larger all of the time.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

" think anyone with an IQ over 75 knows that we did the wrong thing at the start of this war.... We are fighting them on their terms... a friendlier more warm and fuzzy kind of warfare...
Nothing more fun than trying to whip a Gorilla with one arm tied behind you...."

How is taking the fight to their doorstep fighting it on their terms?  Their terms were sneaking in the backdoor of our country and hi-jacking our aircraft to use as weapons.

There is not near as much honor to these nut-jobs in killing U.S. service men and women who know it could be a reality of their job.  They get their glory in killing innocent civilians, not military personnel.

The people who are fighting this war to keep the rest of the world safe volunteered to do this and know they could pay a high price to do it.  No one held a gun to their head and told them to join the military.

Democrats need to quit playing games and trying to tie one arm behind the backs of our troops.

You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...

Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.

We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.

I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...

We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.

"That's what I call warm and fuzzy warfare"...

You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....

tough sh#t...

These, oh ferocious Conan and ip, would have been our terms... not their terms.


Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......

But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."

To hell with the promise after Viet Nam that we would never go to war again unless it was full force...

By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.

Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.

[jdb]

Damn rico...the armchair bullys finally get to you or did you pause on Fox for a nano second too long?

Reading this again, looking for grounds that merited my post as crap (oh yeah, up your's ip) all I gained was a bit more respect for rwarn - so not a complete waste.

Still, IMO, the surge is going to bust: given the rising heat from the American public, the political climatic activity, and anyones best guess of when the Iraqi's can recruit, organize and operate effectively - with advisor's or not.

There is no Victory in an 11th hour, stop-gap measure, that buys a little time and might save a little face once the smoke clears: but there is one helva cost.

Another lesson we learn and vow not to repeat?

Do NOT go stomping off to War with some little man that has 75 points under his cowboy hat, a burr under his saddle, and whom can't read the night sky to find his way back.

jdb

<slanderous comments made while obviously under the influence of something illegal removed>

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084
Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'
by Mike Shuster
All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 • An Iraqi military spokesman has announced that heavy vehicles will be banned from crossing most of Baghdad's bridges. The ban appears to be designed to keep the bridges safe from suicide bombers; hundreds of suicide bombers have detonated their explosives in the four years of the Iraq war.
Suicide bombings have been used in various conflicts around the world since 1980. But never has the world seen such an enormous number of such attacks as in Iraq — at least 350, and likely more, since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
On April 12, a man smuggled a suicide vest inside the building housing Iraq's parliament in the Green Zone, the most fortified and protected area in all of Iraq. There are numerous checkpoints involving frisking, bomb-sniffing dogs and electronic sensors.
But somehow the bomber managed to get inside, and he detonated his bomb, killing himself and one member of parliament.
As such attacks go, the death toll was minor. Symbolically, though, the message was clear: suicide attackers can hit anywhere.
Now, as thousands of additional U.S. troops are being deployed to Baghdad's neighborhoods as part of the "surge" strategy, there has been an epidemic of suicide attacks. The bombers use cars, trucks. They can be on foot. They get very close to their targets, and their attacks are highly lethal — far more deadly than ordinary roadside bombs.
On April 18, a string of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, cut a swath of death and mayhem across Baghdad. Nearly 200 people were killed that day, 140 of them in one huge blast at the predominantly Shiite market in Sadriya, a neighborhood of north central Baghdad.
It's fair to say that the suicide bomber is the insurgency's most devastating weapon, yet there is precious little understanding of who orchestrates the attacks and what motivates the attackers.
Many attacks have taken place in markets and bus stations, killing thousands of civilians. Most of the civilians killed have been Shiites. Most if not all of the suicide attacks have been carried out by Sunni insurgents.
Last year, NPR conducted a short interview with a would-be suicide bomber, a teenage Iraqi girl.
"My name is Noor Abid Ghezal," she said in Arabic. "I am 18 years old. I am accused of terrorism; the attempted assassination of Hussein al-Sadr, the member of the parliament from Kadhimiya."
Speaking from a jail cell, Noor told a story laced with romance and deception, at once naive and bitter, reflecting just how ruthless and manipulative those who plan these attacks can be.
"I was a student," she said. "I only had my mother at home but she died. After that I fell in love with my stepmother's friend. I loved him and he loved me. I didn't know that he was such a bastard until later on."
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been at least 351 confirmed suicide bombings in Iraq. That number was supplied by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which maintains perhaps the world's most extensive database on suicide attacks.
Pape's data indicate that the pace of suicide bombing in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate.
"Before our invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide attack in its history," Pape said. "Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we've had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there."
Pape has looked closely at who conducts suicide bombing across the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, examining educational level and socio-economic background, among other factors. In many cases, the bombers relayed their rationale in their own words, after videotapes surfaced or their last words were posted on the Internet.
Pape concluded that suicide bombing is used primarily against forces that the attackers see as foreign occupiers or collaborators.
Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.
But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.
Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq.
Pape has not found one confirmed instance of a Shiite suicide bomber in the Iraq conflict.
Of the targets, more than 50 percent were military. Civilian targets accounted for more than 30 percent last year.
In the case of Noor, her boyfriend wanted her to kill a Shiite member of parliament.
"He turned out to work with a terrorist group," Noor said. "He introduced me to another group of men. They were terrorists, but I didn't realize this. They entrapped me, and here I am in prison."
In the interview with her last year, Noor did not explain why she did not go through with the bombing, or how one of her handlers was seized when she was arrested. Sometimes those who accompany the bomber actually detonate the bomb remotely, but that was not how it worked in Noor's case.
"So I was sentenced to seven years in prison," she said. "One and a half are done."
In fact, Iraq's prisons, those maintained by the Iraqi government and the detainee camps that the United States has run since 2003, may be the source of future suicide bombers.
The worst abuses — like those that occurred in Abu Ghraib — may have largely been curtailed.
But many Sunnis believe that prisoners are still abused and that makes the prisoners easy recruits for the insurgency.
"The prisons are only incubating these people," said Selim Abdullah, spokesman for the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Speaking in Arabic, he said, "An innocent person who enters prison for three years without knowing why he is there will be an easy tool for them. When he gets released, he becomes one of those who follow the criminal path."
Hundreds of bombers have already sacrificed their lives in suicide attacks in Iraq. Yet it seems that the supply of future suicide bombers gets larger and larger all of the time.

[iplaw]

quote:
You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...

That's okay, I tired of you long ago.  Go away.  No one is forcing you to be here.

quote:
Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.

A bit off topic, but OK...

quote:
We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.

I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...

Well, since you fly an F-16 that's a fairly obvious omission.

quote:
We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.

Yes.  Because of anti-war idiots who scream bloody murder if we don't.  I'm sure you'd just be chiming in right along with the administration if we would have dropped the sh&t hammer on Afghanistan.  If you're trying to say that we could have killed all of the Taliban, you're on drugs.  Too many places to hide, too many places (like Iraq) to flee to.

quote:
You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....

Yeah.  We were given the opportunity when he was vulnerable and exposed under Clinton and we chose not to take it.

quote:
Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......

Comparison to what?  The hundreds of thousands that died at the hands of Saddam?

quote:
But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you.  I personally would have sent in as many as we did in GWI.  I don't know that it would have helped but it certainly wouldn't have hurt.

quote:
By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.

We aren't looking for the respect or the admiration of the world, and frankly after exposing the oil-for-food scandal I think that's a justified position.

quote:
Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.

Anti-war morons said the same of Afhganistan.  That if we killed OBL that 10,000 more would spring up in his place.

You may as well admit that the cause of terrorism is anyone's resistance to it, and just accept the fact that if you engage these loons militarily, you're going to create blowback.  Tough sh#t.  You saw what the alternative was on 9/11.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...

That's okay, I tired of you long ago.  Go away.  No one is forcing you to be here.

quote:
Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.

A bit off topic, but OK...

quote:
We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.

I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...

Well, since you fly an F-16 that's a fairly obvious omission.

quote:
We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.

As we did in Iraq.  Do you have any proof otherwise?

quote:
You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....

Yeah.  We were given the opportunity when he was vulnerable and exposed under Clinton and we chose not to take it.

quote:
Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......

Comparison to what?  The hundreds of thousands that died at the hands of Saddam?

quote:
But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."

I don't think anyone here disagrees with you.  I personally would have sent in as many as we did in GWI.  I don't know that it would have helped but it certainly wouldn't have hurt.

quote:
By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.

We aren't looking for the respect or the admiration of the world, and frankly after exposing the oil-for-food scandal I think that's a justified position.

quote:
Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.

Anti-war morons said the same of Afhganistan.  That if we killed OBL that 10,000 more would spring up in his place.

You may as well admit that the cause of terrorism is anyone's resistance to it, and just accept the fact that if you engage these loons militarily, you're going to create blowback.  Tough sh#t.  You saw what the alternative was on 9/11.

True to form. a weak whimpish response.

You and yours carry on...

When you have a little more insight regarding, military capabilities as opposed to the "Mission Accomplished" point of view, reality may be something you can see.

But then I doubt it.

[iplaw]

quote:True to form. a weak whimpish response.

[}:)]  Nice response.  Bu-bye...

quote:
When you have a little more insight regarding, military capabilities as opposed to the "Mission Accomplished" point of view, reality may be something you can see.

General Rico, Thanks for your oh so poignant "military insights" in your posts.  I'm sorry I can't comprehend or appreciate them.


Diiiisssmissed!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Rico
[br

You know what I am now becoming sick of you whimps...

Neither you or ip were in Nam and neither one of you know what prompted the individuals to go.I had more than 50 friends that went... none were drafted. They wanted to go.

We are fighting them on their terms and have been since we invaded Afghanistan.

I do not see too many F-16's driving around in Afghanistan or Iraq...

We strategically bombed portions of Afghanistan... In an effort to minimize collateral damage.

"That's what I call warm and fuzzy warfare"...

You know and I know we could have done away with OBL in roughly a few hours flight time...
but would have caused a large civilian casualty count....

tough sh#t...

These, oh ferocious Conan and ip, would have been our terms... not their terms.


Look at that in comparison to the number of civilian casualties to date......

But our Mister Rumsfeld thought we could do it on the cheap and still look like knights in shining armor. Thats what I call "fighting a Gorilla with one hand tied behind you."

To hell with the promise after Viet Nam that we would never go to war again unless it was full force...

By the way.... Iraq was incidental. Had we blown the sh#t out of the campground and OBL.... we would have had the respect and dominance on the global stage that this futile attempt in Iraq is supposed to acquire us.

Iraq is most successful as being an indoctrination tool for the terrorist.

Let's see Rico, were you in Viet Nam or just your "50 friends" who went voluntarily?  

If you weren't there and you had so many friends who volunteered (which I find highly suspect- it has the smell of gross exaggeration all over it) that would make you a "whimp" as well.  By your logic, IP and I are (it's wimp, btw) wimps because we weren't in Viet Nam so that would make you a wimp as well if you weren't there.  Moreso for you if you were of age to be there and weren't.  

Personally, I was 10 years old when the last of the troops were pulled out in 1975.  I wasn't even born when we were sending in advisors.  I don't know IP's age, but I don't believe he would have been of fighting age either.

So you think killing a bunch of innocent civilians is okay in warfare?  So how do you feel about over 3000 innocent American civilians being killed in one day in an act of war?  I want to make sure I understand you correctly, because not much in your post makes sense.  

Fighting on their terms would require us to kill a bunch of innocent civilians.  Our presence in the ME, is keeping them from killing American civilians which is one of their highest goals.  They don't get any thrill out of killing U.S. service people other than the wimps at home who don't really have a clue why it is we are there.  

We are fighting barbarians.  We are not barbarians, we avoid killing civilians if at all possible.  They didn't think we had the guts to go over and root them out and take the battle to their turf.  They mistook Bush II for the p@$$y that Clinton was.

You are trying to make points without facts, only anecdotes about how knowing 50 people who went to Viet Nam makes you a military expert.  With all due respect, sir, this is a different kind of warfare than Viet Nam.

Your arguments are falling apart so now you are having to resort to name-calling and the expert testimony of your friends who supposedly fought in a battle which ended over 30 years ago.

I don't pretend to be a military expert, that is why I favor shutting up and allowing our military to do the job they were sent to do.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by jdb

Damn rico...the armchair bullys finally get to you or did you pause on Fox for a nano second too long?

Reading this again, looking for grounds that merited my post as crap (oh yeah, up your's ip) all I gained was a bit more respect for rwarn - so not a complete waste.

Still, IMO, the surge is going to bust: given the rising heat from the American public, the political climatic activity, and anyones best guess of when the Iraqi's can recruit, organize and operate effectively - with advisor's or not.

There is no Victory in an 11th hour, stop-gap measure, that buys a little time and might save a little face once the smoke clears: but there is one helva cost.

Another lesson we learn and vow not to repeat?

Do NOT go stomping off to War with some little man that has 75 points under his cowboy hat, a burr under his saddle, and whom can't read the night sky to find his way back.

jdb

<slanderous comments made while obviously under the influence of something illegal removed>

This has got Daily Koz, Huffpo, and moveon.org written all over it.  Are you on the mailing list for liberal talking points?

FWIW, the success or failure of the surge should not be gauged by half-baked public  opinion.  It's not designed to win approval amongst the kumbaya crowd here in the states, but to restore order in Iraq.  This is a military operation, not a popularity contest.  It's ultimate success will be restoring order to the area.  Is there some reason you think it's okay to jump out and leave a vacuum which will foment terrorism for years to come?

[jdb]

Are you on the mailing list for liberal talking points?

Lump me in with the kooks for a quick dismissal, eh? I suppose I should be greatfull I wasn't called a Dingus.




FWIW, the success or failure of the surge should not be gauged by half-baked public opinion.


Agree, it shouldn't - that is up to some certain point like genocide or torture (right?) but public opinon does have weight and Mr. J.Q. Public is stepping up on the scale as we type.

It's not designed to win approval amongst the kumbaya crowd here in the states, but to restore order in Iraq.

Agreed, but it should have - for the Surge to work it does have to win approval, particularly now, as it has to produce overnight results. Would have made a better first impression a year ago, as an exit strat, instead of now with a hand ready to pull the plug.

Nope, restoring order is/ and was the Iraqi's job. We are there to assist them accomplish this but had to take the wheel.


This is a military operation, not a popularity contest.


Wrong, it's both and a couple of other painfull things to boot.


It's ultimate success will be restoring order to the area.

Ultimate goal, you mean, which depends on the Iraqi's building up an effective force, which hasn't been happening...but as to it's success I don't see that happening. We didn't seem to take any notes during the nine year war.




Is there some reason you think it's okay to jump out and leave a vacuum which will foment terrorism for years to come?

I don't think it's okay to pull up and walk out. Haven't said that and you can't make me. But the idea that not aping the Soviet's will stop the "ferment" is wrong, as our continued presence seems to be fueling it.

Make ourselves a smaller target with a good vantage point and sieze any and all Iraqi alarm clocks with a snooze feature on the way to our perch. Might help to flood some airwaves with variations of "The little Train That Could".

Just how do you think a War on Terror has any hope of being won without public support, if it can be won in the first place. Seems to me it's a mission of futility with the best outcome being a smaller size and scope of the inevitable next attack on our own soil.

jdb

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9966084
Spate of Suicide Bombings Threatens Iraq 'Surge'
by Mike Shuster
All Things Considered, May 2, 2007 • An Iraqi military spokesman has announced that heavy vehicles will be banned from crossing most of Baghdad's bridges. The ban appears to be designed to keep the bridges safe from suicide bombers; hundreds of suicide bombers have detonated their explosives in the four years of the Iraq war.
Suicide bombings have been used in various conflicts around the world since 1980. But never has the world seen such an enormous number of such attacks as in Iraq — at least 350, and likely more, since the U.S. invasion in 2003.
On April 12, a man smuggled a suicide vest inside the building housing Iraq's parliament in the Green Zone, the most fortified and protected area in all of Iraq. There are numerous checkpoints involving frisking, bomb-sniffing dogs and electronic sensors.
But somehow the bomber managed to get inside, and he detonated his bomb, killing himself and one member of parliament.
As such attacks go, the death toll was minor. Symbolically, though, the message was clear: suicide attackers can hit anywhere.
Now, as thousands of additional U.S. troops are being deployed to Baghdad's neighborhoods as part of the "surge" strategy, there has been an epidemic of suicide attacks. The bombers use cars, trucks. They can be on foot. They get very close to their targets, and their attacks are highly lethal — far more deadly than ordinary roadside bombs.
On April 18, a string of bombings, most of them suicide attacks, cut a swath of death and mayhem across Baghdad. Nearly 200 people were killed that day, 140 of them in one huge blast at the predominantly Shiite market in Sadriya, a neighborhood of north central Baghdad.
It's fair to say that the suicide bomber is the insurgency's most devastating weapon, yet there is precious little understanding of who orchestrates the attacks and what motivates the attackers.
Many attacks have taken place in markets and bus stations, killing thousands of civilians. Most of the civilians killed have been Shiites. Most if not all of the suicide attacks have been carried out by Sunni insurgents.
Last year, NPR conducted a short interview with a would-be suicide bomber, a teenage Iraqi girl.
"My name is Noor Abid Ghezal," she said in Arabic. "I am 18 years old. I am accused of terrorism; the attempted assassination of Hussein al-Sadr, the member of the parliament from Kadhimiya."
Speaking from a jail cell, Noor told a story laced with romance and deception, at once naive and bitter, reflecting just how ruthless and manipulative those who plan these attacks can be.
"I was a student," she said. "I only had my mother at home but she died. After that I fell in love with my stepmother's friend. I loved him and he loved me. I didn't know that he was such a bastard until later on."
Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, there have been at least 351 confirmed suicide bombings in Iraq. That number was supplied by Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, which maintains perhaps the world's most extensive database on suicide attacks.
Pape's data indicate that the pace of suicide bombing in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate.
"Before our invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide attack in its history," Pape said. "Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been essentially doubling in Iraq every year that we've had more or less 150,000 American combat soldiers stationed there."
Pape has looked closely at who conducts suicide bombing across the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, examining educational level and socio-economic background, among other factors. In many cases, the bombers relayed their rationale in their own words, after videotapes surfaced or their last words were posted on the Internet.
Pape concluded that suicide bombing is used primarily against forces that the attackers see as foreign occupiers or collaborators.
Many in Iraq deny that Iraqis carry out suicide attacks, pointing instead to fighters associated with al-Qaida, who come from outside Iraq.
But the record shows otherwise. The first suicide bombing against U.S. troops occurred during the invasion, on March 29, 2003, in Najaf. It was carried out by a member of the Iraqi force known as the Fedayeen Saddam. Before the war was over, U.S. Marines found a stockpile of suicide vests hidden in a school in Baghdad.
Of the 351 confirmed suicide attacks in Iraq by the end of 2006, the Chicago project has been able to identify 55 of the attackers. Thirteen were Iraqis; 16 were Saudis. Three-quarters of the attackers were Iraqi or from the Sunni-dominated states bordering Iraq.
Pape has not found one confirmed instance of a Shiite suicide bomber in the Iraq conflict.
Of the targets, more than 50 percent were military. Civilian targets accounted for more than 30 percent last year.
In the case of Noor, her boyfriend wanted her to kill a Shiite member of parliament.
"He turned out to work with a terrorist group," Noor said. "He introduced me to another group of men. They were terrorists, but I didn't realize this. They entrapped me, and here I am in prison."
In the interview with her last year, Noor did not explain why she did not go through with the bombing, or how one of her handlers was seized when she was arrested. Sometimes those who accompany the bomber actually detonate the bomb remotely, but that was not how it worked in Noor's case.
"So I was sentenced to seven years in prison," she said. "One and a half are done."
In fact, Iraq's prisons, those maintained by the Iraqi government and the detainee camps that the United States has run since 2003, may be the source of future suicide bombers.
The worst abuses — like those that occurred in Abu Ghraib — may have largely been curtailed.
But many Sunnis believe that prisoners are still abused and that makes the prisoners easy recruits for the insurgency.
"The prisons are only incubating these people," said Selim Abdullah, spokesman for the Sunni bloc in the Iraqi parliament. Speaking in Arabic, he said, "An innocent person who enters prison for three years without knowing why he is there will be an easy tool for them. When he gets released, he becomes one of those who follow the criminal path."
Hundreds of bombers have already sacrificed their lives in suicide attacks in Iraq. Yet it seems that the supply of future suicide bombers gets larger and larger all of the time.

The way you are able to blindly ignore all facts that are in conflict with your twisted and fake world view reminds me of someone...



Who is it?


Altruism. You are the right's version of that fool.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by jdb

Are you on the mailing list for liberal talking points?

Lump me in with the kooks for a quick dismissal, eh? I suppose I should be greatfull I wasn't called a Dingus.

Sorry to dissapoint you Dingus.

quote:
Agree, it shouldn't - that is up to some certain point like genocide or torture (right?) but public opinon does have weight and Mr. J.Q. Public is stepping up on the scale as we type.

Is it 4:20 yet?

quote:
Nope, restoring order is/ and was the Iraqi's job. We are there to assist them accomplish this but had to take the wheel.

Yes, and according to Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, they still need our help as they are unprepared to take on the task of policing the country on their own.

quote:
Ultimate goal, you mean, which depends on the Iraqi's building up an effective force, which hasn't been happening...but as to it's success I don't see that happening. We didn't seem to take any notes during the nine year war.

This has absolutely no relation to the nine years war.  Building an effective armed force takes time.  Do you know what it takes to create an army?  The time, the training, and the equipment?  Maybe this is why Conan said these issues are not the pervue of the civilian, and to let the military do its job.  

quote:
I don't think it's okay to pull up and walk out. Haven't said that and you can't make me. But the idea that not aping the Soviet's will stop the "ferment" is wrong, as our continued presence seems to be fueling it.

Make ourselves a smaller target with a good vantage point and sieze any and all Iraqi alarm clocks with a snooze feature on the way to our perch. Might help to flood some airwaves with variations of "The little Train That Could".

How can we both be engaged on that level, yet at an arm's length distance from the action?  That type of information comes from boots on the ground and intelligence gathering in the community.

quote:
Just how do you think a War on Terror has any hope of being won without public support, if it can be won in the first place. Seems to me it's a mission of futility with the best outcome being a smaller size and scope of the inevitable next attack on our own soil.

Who's public support are you pining for?