Dubya's New Iraq, Little Different than Saddam's Iraq

[rogerstaubach]

..outside of Kabul Warlords rule Afhanistan, ya real great job.

your sarcasm makes we wonder about where your allegiance in regards to the Afghani people lie.

Warlords and Taleban vs a gov't elected by the Afghani people?

 

[rogerstaubach]

...your obviously young and stupid and hopelessly ignorant.

Terb Posting Guidelines

5. No abuse, name calling, derogatory statements or insults that are not OBVIOUSLY given and received with good humor will be tolerated

Gee, how did assoholic's post not qualify as meeting point #5?

 

[rogerstaubach]

Why is Iraq on the tipping point of a civil war today?

Sorry DQ, just doing my little part to have EVERYONE treated fairly and equally here on Terb.

Odd how those who have complained the loudest about abusive posts in the past, also engage in such a pattern of abusive posts themselves.

 

[WoodPeckr]

sparty86 better study a little real history!

I guess by definition Russia didn't have "considerable weight" because they couldn't defeat the Taliban. The US on the other hand got the Taliban to surrender to our Air Force. Now that is "weight."

sparty86,
you getting history lessons from Limbaugh & K Rove?.....

Read a history text kiddie. The reason the USSR couldn't defeat the Taliban, is because the Taliban didn't even exist then!
The USSR lost their Afghan war because Reagan and the USA was directly aiding their ALLY OSAMA BIN LADEN back then, against the USSR. Reagan/Cheney/Rummy trained and showed OSAMA BIN LADEN how to beat the USSR!
The Taliban emerged and took power after that USSR/Afghan War ended by the USSR withdrawing in defeat. The Taliban never surrendered to our Air Force, they just withdrew and have recently shown signs of making a comeback figuring they can, because of the USA being over extended and stalled in Iraq at present.

"After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force capable of bringing order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against their enemies, their relative hegemony reduced the number of factions) and brought relative stability by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society. Although the radical ideology of the Taliban would later alienate many, several observers initially considered its emergence as a positive development.

Main article: U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

On September 22, 2001, as the U.S. blamed Osama bin Laden and his hosts, the Taliban, for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. When threatened with retributive attack by the U.S. for harboring al-Qaeda, the Taliban government offered to judge Osama bin Laden in an Islamic court, and later, to hand him over to a neutral country for a war crimes trial. These offers were rejected by the United States, which instead offered an ultimatum[4] demanding, among other things, the handover of all al-Qaeda leaders and the closure and inspection of all "terrorist training camp".

Shortly afterward, the United States, aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, initiated military action against the Taliban. The stated intent was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden for his involvement in the September 11 attacks, and in retaliation for the Taliban's aid to him. The ground war was mainly fought by the Northern Alliance, the remaining elements of the anti-Taliban forces which the Taliban had routed over the previous years.

Mazar-i-Sharif fell to U.S.-Northern Alliance forces on November 9, leading to a cascade of provinces falling with minimal resistance, and many local forces switching loyalties from the Taliban to the Northern Alliance. On the night of November 12, the Taliban retreated south in an orderly fashion from Kabul. On November 15, they released eight Western aid workers after three months in captivity (see Attacks on humanitarian workers).

The UN Security Council, on January 16, 2002, unanimously established an arms embargo and the freezing of identifiable assets belonging to bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the remaining Taliban.

The Taliban later retreated from Kandahar, and regrouped in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Most post-invasion Taliban fighters are new recruits, drawn again from that region's madrassahs (madrassah means "school" in Arabic). The more traditional Qur'anic schools are claimed by the U.S. to be the primary source of the new fighters."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

 

[Asterix]

I'm afraid you are dead wrong. The Iraqi people voted in representatives to represent them in gov't. The gov't elected by the people can at any time tell the coalition forces to leave or to remain. The gov't as voted in by the people in Iraq has asked the coaltion forces to stay until atleast the end of 2006. They can if they wish tell them to go at any time.

They can, but given recent events it is unlikely they would ask them to leave any time soon. This week the Pentagon has also downgraded the one Iraq battalion that had been considered able to act independently. There are now no Iraqi troops that can operate without US support. Iraqization seems to be having the same difficulties as Vietnamization.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Looks like Déjà Vu all over again.......

This week the Pentagon has also downgraded the one Iraq battalion that had been considered able to act independently. There are now no Iraqi troops that can operate without US support. Iraqization seems to be having the same difficulties as Vietnamization.

As Pete Seeger sang during the Viet Nam War......

"We're Waist deep in the big Muddy
and the big fool says to push on"......

 

[danmand]

They can, but given recent events it is unlikely they would ask them to leave any time soon. This week the Pentagon has also downgraded the one Iraq battalion that had been considered able to act independently. There are now no Iraqi troops that can operate without US support. Iraqization seems to be having the same difficulties as Vietnamization.

I think this is a variation on what the natives said about the british and the midday sun.

 

[rogerstaubach]

They can, but given recent events it is unlikely they would ask them to leave any time soon. This week the Pentagon has also downgraded the one Iraq battalion that had been considered able to act independently. There are now no Iraqi troops that can operate without US support. Iraqization seems to be having the same difficulties as Vietnamization.

Saddam's lid over the bubbling historical cauldron of Iraq was removed. The tempest of civil war appears to have been cooled by moderate doses of reason and sanity. The precipice has been predicted to tip on a multitude of occassions yet it has not.

The doomsayers predict civil war after civil war, yet doses of reason and sanity somehow still prevail. Militias with allegiance to sects is the vehicle with which religious leaders have the keys to start or stop.

 

[TOVisitor]

I truly am old and a pessimist. But, I'm not naive
You have your right to 'believe' our President. Those
that study science, politics, history, economics and
philosophy reject and are impatient when dealing with
those who are only the biased minds of a 'believer'.
They, like me, are more likely to ask: So, just the
facts ma'm. I'll make my own conclusions.

Don.

Truly, I am ancient. And proud of it.

DQ, ole sparty is engaging in that new word of the year, truthiness:

In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year.

Recently popularized on the Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Central television channel, truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

As Stephen Colbert put it, “I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.”

 

[WoodPeckr]

Neocon Fantasies on a Sunday afternoon......

Saddam's lid over the bubbling historical cauldron of Iraq was removed. The tempest of civil war appears to have been cooled by moderate doses of reason and sanity. The precipice has been predicted to tip on a multitude of occassions yet it has not.

The doomsayers predict civil war after civil war, yet doses of reason and sanity somehow still prevail. Militias with allegiance to sects is the vehicle with which religious leaders have the keys to start or stop.

What are you drinking, some Limbaugh lemming-aid?!?!?!
It's a frigging bloodbath over there.
Violence growing by the day.
You have a peculiar neocon vision of 'reason and sanity', unless you use George Orwell's 'War is Peace' definition of 'reason and sanity'.
US troops presence is the only thing holding back an all out civil war.
Just like Nam when US troops leave, Dubya's neocon creation will most likely crumble and Iraq will become another Iran........

Mission Accomplished & last
throes of the Insurgency....INDEED!!!

 

[Asterix]

Saddam's lid over the bubbling historical cauldron of Iraq was removed. The tempest of civil war appears to have been cooled by moderate doses of reason and sanity. The precipice has been predicted to tip on a multitude of occassions yet it has not.

The doomsayers predict civil war after civil war, yet doses of reason and sanity somehow still prevail. Militias with allegiance to sects is the vehicle with which religious leaders have the keys to start or stop.

OK. Not really what I was addressing, but that's alright. Better than a year ago three Iraq battalions were said to be ready to operate on their own, just over 2000 soldiers. About a year ago that was cut back to one and now, as I said, none are. While more Iraqi troops are taking the "lead", they can't do so wiithout US armor and air support. With scores of battalions needed to take our place, it seems reasonable to assume that they are not close to acting without the US military backing them up.

Little talked about, is the other armed presence in the region; namely the para-military forces run by the corporations involved in rebuilding. Increasingly they have become a preferred and easier target than the US soldiers. Once the US leaves, the attacks against these contractors will almost certainly increase. If the Iraqi army is not prepared or committed to go after the insurgents involved in such attacks, the rebuilding of the infrastructure could very well grind to a halt.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Nation Building .....Cheney/Dubya Style......

....Better than a year ago three Iraq battalions were said to be ready to operate on their own, just over 2000 soldiers. About a year ago that was cut back to one and now, as I said, none are.

This is very telling.
WTF is going on when 'neocon trained' Iraqi forces go from 3 battalions battle ready, to 1, to ZERO!.... and neocons like rogie somehow see this as progress!
What is missing is the reason(s) why Team 'w's finely trained Iraqi forces went from 3 - 1 - ZERO?!?!?
What happened? Did they quit or go over to the other side?.......

Our War President !!!

 

[Asterix]

This is very telling.
WTF is going on when 'neocon trained' Iraqi forces go from 3 battalions battle ready, to 1, to ZERO!.... and neocons like rogie somehow see this as progress!
What is missing is the reason(s) why Team 'w's finely trained Iraqi forces went from 3 - 1 - ZERO?!?!?
What happened? Did they quit or go over to the other side?.......

No. I would call it uncommon honesty from the Defense Department on the lack of readiness of the Iraqi military to be independent. That or a father figure unwilling to remove the training wheels. The US does not need a civil war to continue it's presence in Iraq. Excuses that can be used to stay there are a dime a dozen.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Neocon 'Situational Science' may replace Intelligent Design!

DQ, ole sparty is engaging in that new word of the year, truthiness:

In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year.

Recently popularized on the Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Central television channel, truthiness refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

As Stephen Colbert put it, “I don’t trust books. They’re all fact, no heart.”

Truthiness again comes into play in Sunday's Doonesbury comic strip:

Doonesbury brilliantly exhibits the neocon and Dubya's mindset where 'belief' trumps 'scientific facts' etc., all the time

Enjoy: Doonesbury 3/5/2006 as Garry Trudeau explains the fine points of neocon 'situational science' as the Goofy GOPers now call it.........

Neocon 'Situational Science' can be defined as "respecting both sides of a scientific argument, not just the one supported by facts"!

Dubya agrees. I don’t trust books.
They’re all fact, no heart!!!

 

[TOVisitor]

Looks like they still have a lot of work to do. Does this surprise you? Why do commies always point out flaws in democracies like Afghanistan or Iraq. Are they saying democracies don't work? That because they aren't perfect they should be replaced with fascists? I really don't understand this line of thinking, but I am sure you will set me straight.

I will permit Andrew McCarthy of the National Review to answer you on this one. BTW, sparty, McCarthy has now joined Bill Buckley and John Derbyshire to say that Iraq is a mess and we have to go home.

A VOTE FOR RUBBLE DOESN'T MAKE TROUBLE [Andy McCarthy]

FWIW, I am in the Derb camp to the extent that I would never have gone to Iraq for the purpose of trying to democratize it.

First, I don’t think Iraq – or any Islamic country that is determined to remain an Islamic country – has any inclination to democratize in the sense that we would recognize as democracy.

Second, even if it did, the administration has never made the case – and I don’t think it can – that democracy in a foreign country makes America safer from terrorists. (To the contrary, there is a lot of evidence of terrorists using democracies to threaten the U.S.) The people who say otherwise simply refuse to face up to the fact that the lack of democracy is not the cause of Islamic terrorism, and therefore the advent of democracy cannot be the cure.

We went to Iraq to depose Saddam because he was thought a threat to our national security. The administration inexplicably short-sold the abundant case of his facilitation of Islamic terrorism (such that when one asks the logical question “What does Iraq have to do with al Qaeda or the War on Terror?” most Americans – and even administration officials – seem to be without a very good answer). When WMD were not found, the conventional wisdom calcified that we had no good reason to be in Iraq in the first place. The less likely finding WMD became, the more democratizing Iraq was stressed as a noble reason for the war. But this shifting of priorities should not confuse us: democratizing Iraq is not a cause we would ever have gone to war over.

If we are in Iraq now because we have the terrorists collected there and we are taking the opportunity to mow down as many as we can, that’s a good reason to press on. That would provide a big improvement in our security.

But if we are there primarily to try to turn Iraq into a democracy that is a big mistake. We should make it as stable as reason allows, then leave. As far as democracy is concerned: (a) even if we hunker down for a decade or two, whether it can happen is dubious at best; (b) whether, if it does happen, we will be safer is even more questionable; (c) the American people don’t care whether Iraq is a democracy as long as it doesn’t threaten the American people (we would take an America-friendly monarch over an Iran-friendly “democracy” any day); and (d) if the American people think the price tag of taking necessary action in furtherance of their own security now includes staying in hard places for extra years, and losing extra lives and extra hundreds of billions of dollars, all on a dubious theory that the Islamic world will democratize and thus make us safer, they will shrink from taking those necessary actions. That makes us much less safe.

What's that? Why, it's the sound of wingnut heads exploding.

 

[papasmerf]

I will permit Andrew McCarthy of the National Review to answer you on this one. BTW, sparty, McCarthy has now joined Bill Buckley and John Derbyshire to say that Iraq is a mess and we have to go home.



What's that? Why, it's the sound of wingnut heads exploding.

So yu supported the MCCarthy hearings?

 

[TOVisitor]

So yu supported the MCCarthy hearings?

Have you seen "Good night and good luck"? Great movie and wonderful parallels to today.

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."

George Clooney had a great acceptance speech last night at the Oscars, talking about how "out of touch" Hollywood is.

Hollywood made movies about AIDS and confronted rascism and anti-semitism well before "mainstream" America cared about such issues. Back in the day, those topics were taboo. Too bad, but the right-wing would like to ignore such topics and go on living their white bread life.

 

[Truncador]

Ordinarily I have no use, and much scorn, for the critiques of American capitalist civilization traditionally put forth by disgruntled European aristocrats and ascetic Scottish moralists. Then I look at Hollywood, and am reminded that everybody is right at least once.