PDA

View Full Version : Hardline Sunni cleric willing to meet



Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 05:04 PM
CAIRO, Egypt - A prominent hardline Iraqi Sunni cleric said Friday he was willing to meet with top Shiite religious leaders to end sectarian violence and help move
Iraq out of its internal crisis.

"We are ready to meet anybody who is sincere, and desires good things for Iraq and for Iraqis, in particular the supreme religious leadership in Iraq," Harith al-Dhari, leader of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said on Al-Jazeera television.

By supreme religious leadership, al-Dhari was apparently referring to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most prominent Shiite cleric.

LINKY (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sunnis_shiites)


Just a little tidbit for those who say the tribes would not see eye to eye for a cause

maineman
08-25-2006, 06:57 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.... and I'll believe it is effective when the sectarian violence comes to an end.

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 07:00 PM
I'll believe it when I see it.... and I'll believe it is effective when the sectarian violence comes to an end.

That really was'nt the point of the post sir, I was merely pointing out that they will discuss an issue here. Many here claim that the two hate each other so much that they would never come together for anything. I say if they can come together to stop killing each other, I'm certain they can come together for other issues as well.

maineman
08-25-2006, 07:04 PM
I don't see where THEY will discuss anything. the sunni says he's willing. Sistani ain't said shit, or did I miss something here?

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 07:08 PM
You in a bad mood tonight maine?

Perhaps they never talk but one side has agreed, that's a step closer away from never.

maineman
08-25-2006, 07:13 PM
no doubt.... but it is light years away from a "vibrant multi-cultural democracy shining like a beacon of freedom illuminating all the dark places in the Islamic world" which is what Bush promised us he would deliver.

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 07:17 PM
I asked you if you were in a bad mood....where's the love?:cof1:

Ok, I see what you are saying but that was not my "aha told ya so" idea.
my "aha told you so" idea was more about what happens if they do get past their own ideaologies for a different cause, see what I am getting at now?

maineman
08-25-2006, 07:24 PM
I do...and I admire your hopefulness.... sunnis and shiites in Iraq have been sworn enemies for a long long time...shiites, even though the majority, were totally subjegated and fucked over by Saddam and his sunni pals. I don't see this violence ending just because one cleric says he wants to talk.... or even because two clerics DO talk.

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 07:31 PM
I do...and I admire your hopefulness.... sunnis and shiites in Iraq have been sworn enemies for a long long time...shiites, even though the majority, were totally subjegated and fucked over by Saddam and his sunni pals. I don't see this violence ending just because one cleric says he wants to talk.... or even because two clerics DO talk.

You are learning me a bit more on the factions but again I'm more concerned that the coming together if it should ever happen sparks a bigger concern, the spreading of extremism even if only slightly.

maineman
08-25-2006, 07:48 PM
I think extremism is a byproduct of the socio-economic condition. I doubt that terrorism would find many adherents if there were socio-economic equity.

Cypress
08-25-2006, 08:00 PM
This is liike a bad movie, you've seen multiple times. I've been reading for two years, about how the sunnis and shias are "talking".

Of course some of them are talking. Not everbody in Iraq wants to die in a civil war.

Only of Fox News could this possibly be touted as some sort of milestone of progress (thanks to Bush, of course)..

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 08:02 PM
Nah, ya think? I think it has to be more than just that,and if equity existed would'nt ya think it would be all the more better from a extremist point of view?

Cypress
08-25-2006, 08:12 PM
I don't see where THEY will discuss anything. the sunni says he's willing. Sistani ain't said shit, or did I miss something here?

The Bushies have reached the bottom of the barrel. The last line of defense: Bush's new justifcation for the iraq war: "Well, it could be worse..."


Bush's New Iraq Argument: "It Could Be Worse"

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 24, 2006; Page A01

Of all the words that President Bush used at his news conference this week to defend his policies in Iraq, the one that did not pass his lips was "progress."

For three years, the president tried to reassure Americans that more progress was being made in Iraq than they realized. But with Iraq either in civil war or on the brink of it, Bush dropped the unseen-progress argument in favor of the contention that things could be even worse.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301878.html

Sir Evil
08-25-2006, 08:18 PM
The Bushies have reached the bottom of the barrel. The last line of defense: Bush's new justifcation for the iraq war: "Well, it could be worse..."



Here we go, Input from the peanut gallery trying to make it all about bush.

My point of discussion is nothing to do with iraq but so long as you are wearing your playdoh mask you would'nt of known that.

Now, can someone quote this so this guy might remove the mudflap hiding his vagina, and maybe step into a debat about something like a man?

:cool:

maineman
08-25-2006, 09:37 PM
Nah, ya think? I think it has to be more than just that,and if equity existed would'nt ya think it would be all the more better from a extremist point of view?
no...I really think that the west having it all and the arab world being under the thumb of oil royalty and despots has created a climate of despair that is fertile soil for extremists

Annie
08-25-2006, 09:51 PM
I do...and I admire your hopefulness.... sunnis and shiites in Iraq have been sworn enemies for a long long time...shiites, even though the majority, were totally subjegated and fucked over by Saddam and his sunni pals. I don't see this violence ending just because one cleric says he wants to talk.... or even because two clerics DO talk.

Just so you know, it's not the only one:


http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/mean-streets.html


Thursday, August 24, 2006
Mean Streets
So in the last few days WaPo ran a story asserting that "the debate is over" and the Iraqi Civil War is officially raging, and the NYT ran a story claiming that "by almost all measures," Iraq's insurgency is getting worse. So how is it that people in Baghdad are telling ABC News that they feel safer than they've felt in a long time?

“I’m happy because we’re safe,” said a man who lives in Dora, a Baghdad neighborhood. “Stores are open and we can move around freely.”

Turns out that, news of the Apocalypse notwithstanding, there's apparently been a significant decline in Baghdad street violence this month, including both criminal and political attacks. At least that's what U.S. and Iraqi officials are claiming. While it's reasonable to take a skeptical view of such claims like these, it's just as reasonable to be skeptical of the U.S. media's reports about the state of the city. As for me, I put my bet on the Baghdadis.

Here's what's going on. The U.S. military has increased its presence in Baghdad in order to rein in the murders, kidnappings and other criminal violent activity that has been plaguing the capital. (This security program does not address car bombings.) Some 5,000 extra troops moved in two weeks ago, and joined with thousands of Iraqi troops to do door-to-door sweeps in a series of dangerous neighborhoods.

The result, according to ABC news, is “encouraging.” The network reported that in the last two weeks, there has been a significant decline in violent attacks. The Iraqi ministry of defense says that violent attacks were down 30 percent, the U.S. military says the violence was down 22 percent, and both agree the numbers are preliminary.

ABC 's report focused on the Dora neighborhood, a mostly Sunni area. According to that report, July was a very bloody month in Dora, with as many as 20 people killed there every day. Stores closed, and people were afraid to leave their homes. In the last 14 days, however, there has been just one killing, and normal activity has resumed.

The Associated Press has reported similar results from a different neighborhood. On August 16th, early in the process, the west Baghdad area of Amariyah, which is also a Sunni-majority community, was reportedly secured in a house-to-house security sweep that lasted three days.

"Since we began the operation, not one person from Amariyah has died, not one act of violence has occurred," a U.S. officer told the AP at the time. "We have demonstrated that it can be done,"

In eastern Baghdad, an Iraqi is in charge of the security campaign. Gen. Bashar Mahmood Ayoub told the BBC that (as the Beeb paraphrased it), "the number of killings and kidnappings has been reduced a lot in the past month."

"While there may be a dramatic drop in violence in some neighbourhoods at the moment," notes the BBC, American officials are concerned "that some of the death squads might simply have moved elsewhere to escape the security net." That's may well be true, though there are as yet no reports of death-squad activities in areas where they had not been active before.

In the meantime, the lives of many Baghdadis are improving, at least for now. Indeed, to borrow a phrase from the apocalyptic NYT, if their lives haven't improved "by almost all measures," they've improved by the most important one. Perhaps, to echo WaPo, the debate's not quite over after all.

Update: David Ignatius walks down Baghdad's mean streets, too (Aug. 25). "In the past three weeks," he writes, "the U.S. military has killed about 25 death squad leaders, and captured more than 200," according to the officer leading the sweep.

posted by IraqPundit at 9:28 AM

Brent
08-26-2006, 03:05 AM
I'll believe it when I see it.... and I'll believe it is effective when the sectarian violence comes to an end.

I bet you hope it fails. :)

A successful, peaceful Iraq would put the final nail in your party's coffin.

maineman
08-26-2006, 06:18 AM
I bet you hope it fails. :)

A successful, peaceful Iraq would put the final nail in your party's coffin.

that is insulting (which really is the only type of discourse you do well)

A successful peaceful Iraq would mean that no more Americans would have t die there.

I am sorely tempted to put you on ignore, you annoying twit.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:21 AM
I bet you hope it fails. :)

A successful, peaceful Iraq would put the final nail in your party's coffin.

Admittedtly it would'nt bother me all too much! These people killing each other for what? let them kill themselves so the others may find peace in their future.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:23 AM
I am sorely tempted to put you on ignore, you annoying twit.

Don't do that, it's the easy way out! you have good skills to rebuke a post, go that route and keep a thread fun to debate!......:cof1:

Brent
08-26-2006, 11:29 AM
that is insulting (which really is the only type of discourse you do well)

A successful peaceful Iraq would mean that no more Americans would have t die there.

I am sorely tempted to put you on ignore, you annoying twit.

Maineman,

If I am wrong, then explain why you're always such a fatalist. I made those remarks after observing your CONSTANT negativity towards the occupation in Iraq. I've not once seen you offer words of support towards our troops; instead you say to them, "you're failing." Am I supposed to interpret this as being supportive of a victory in Iraq?

maineman
08-26-2006, 11:55 AM
I NEVER say to our troops that THEY are failing. They are given missions by the civilian military command structure and they carry them out...and they nearly ALWAYS do so with courage and honor (abu ghraib and haditha and similar incidents are clearly the exception to the rule).

I am VERY hopeful for a victory in Iraq. However, I have some experience in the middle east. I am familiar with the ethnic groups involved. I have ALWAYS been skeptical of this war in Iraq. I have, since back on politics.com and on to fullpolitics.com, continued to be, at first, a lonely voice crying in the wilderness warning of impending disaster. Others now have joined me and our numbers grow.

I have, since the very beginning, warned that taking out Saddam and removing the secular arab sunni baathist counter balance to Iranian persian shiite theocratic hegemony would be a bad thing.. and the conflict in Lebanon is a direct result of that and exactly what I predicted.

I have always said that by invading an oil rich arab country just like OBL predicted would give HIM enormous street cred.... it has. We now have ZERO credibility in the Islamic world.... and we have radicalized the arab street.

That has NOTHING to do with our troops. I am certain that they will fight bravely and effectively in whatever mission Bush and Rummy & Co. send them into.... However, I remain dubious as to the wisdom of those missions.

I am HOPEFUL we prevail in Iraq... I think the best thing would be to bring our boys home now and let Iraq solve its own civil war...we only add fuel to the fire....but my HOPES are tempered with realism and with my own INFORMED perspective which others on here - like you - do not have.

Similarly, I am HOPEFUL that the Red Sox can come back from 5.5 games back to defeat the Yankees for the American League East.... but I am doubtful they can do it. Just because I express those doubts does not make me any less of an ardent Red Sox fan.

So.... here's the deal...if you wanna continue to engage me in conversation....you will immediately cease denigrating my patriotism. The very next time you do I will put you on my ignore list because I really don't have time for immature inarticulate, obnoxious assholes in my life.

Are we clear?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 12:13 PM
I may be wrong here maine but is'nt the syrian government a baathist regime?

maineman
08-26-2006, 12:20 PM
it is...what IS your point?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 12:26 PM
it is...what IS your point?

Well just curious as to why the saddam regime was an arch enemy but not the syrian regime?

maineman
08-26-2006, 12:34 PM
geography

Damocles
08-26-2006, 12:36 PM
And the fact that they give money to the terror organizations, basically a payoff.

maineman
08-26-2006, 12:37 PM
It is in Syria's interest to have a weak and ineffective national government in Lebanon... Hezbollah helps accomplish that.... Syria's focus is westerly... and the mediterranean littoral... they are not a gulf state...they do not play with the oil boys....

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 12:37 PM
all together different ideaologies?

maineman
08-26-2006, 12:41 PM
baathism and shiite theocracies are different...to be sure.... but remember Syria's goal: a destabilized and ineffective government in Lebanon so that Syria can continue to exert influence. They miscalculated with the assassination of Hariri and it cost them.... the move tended to unite lebanese against them... they are perfectly willing to assist Hezbollah in returning instability to the country.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 12:50 PM
baathism and shiite theocracies are different...to be sure.... but remember Syria's goal: a destabilized and ineffective government in Lebanon so that Syria can continue to exert influence. They miscalculated with the assassination of Hariri and it cost them.... the move tended to unite lebanese against them... they are perfectly willing to assist Hezbollah in returning instability to the country.

Ok, thanks for that tidbit!

However did you not think the sadaam regime tried to flex some influence?
I'm just suggesting so to say that if it is iraq, it's syria, and if not them then iran. Are these not the true problems in the middle east?

Cypress
08-26-2006, 12:53 PM
baathism and shiite theocracies are different...to be sure.... but remember Syria's goal: a destabilized and ineffective government in Lebanon so that Syria can continue to exert influence. They miscalculated with the assassination of Hariri and it cost them.... the move tended to unite lebanese against them... they are perfectly willing to assist Hezbollah in returning instability to the country.

Common knowledge to the well-informed.

Sunni Syrian socialist Bathiism, has little in common with theocratic lebanese shia: other than an alliance of convenience for regional goals and influence.

A smart, well-informed, clever american president would know this, and understand the nuance - using that knowledge to manipulate and exploit the divisions between sunni secularits and shia theocrats.

We have George Bush, of course.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 12:55 PM
Common knowledge to the well-informed.

Sunni Syrian socialist Bathiism, has little in common with theocratic lebanese shia: other than an alliance of convenience for regional goals and influence.

A smart, well-informed, clever american president would know this, and understand the nuance - using that knowledge to manipulate and exploit the divisions between sunni secularits and shia theocrats.

We have George Bush, of course.

Shut up mudflap! :321:

maineman
08-26-2006, 12:57 PM
secular middle eastern regimes flexing their muscles are regional issues.... Islamic extremism transcends the boundaries of nation-states...

If you look at the goal of wahabbism, bringing America to our knees is not a strategic goal of theirs.

OBL was furious with us for a number of reasons, and wanted to punish us for them. Our support for Israel, our support and tacit approval of the repressive gulf state royal families and our stationing infidel christian troops in the holy lands of saudi arabia..... all pissed him off.

His overarching goal is the overthrow of secular regimes and repressive monarchies throughout the region and replace them all with an fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Al Qaeda does not seek to establish Islam in the western world, but they definitely want to get the western world OUT of their territories.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 01:04 PM
His overarching goal is the overthrow of secular regimes and repressive monarchies throughout the region and replace them all with an fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. Al Qaeda does not seek to establish Islam in the western world, but they definitely want to get the western world OUT of their territories.

Well you went around my question of regimes who are the potential and obvious problems in the middle east. I fully understand your thoughts of regional influences and such but I am looking at this from our standpoint, not from theirs.

Also, if we out of their terroritories speaking of al queda, you truly believe this puts a stop to terrorism, or am I reading you wrong.

maineman
08-26-2006, 01:18 PM
I believe that if we were indeed "out of the middle east" and did not send foreign aid to Israel, that muslim terrorists would leave us alone.

But we are not going to get out of the middle east and we are not going to stop aiding Israel, so the issue is rhetorical only.

maineman
08-26-2006, 01:19 PM
not a lot of islamic extremists attacking Finnish interests worldwide, are there?

why do you think that is?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 01:24 PM
not a lot of islamic extremists attacking Finnish interests worldwide, are there?

why do you think that is?

What is finnish interest worldwide anyway?

The US is primarily the bigshot, we know this much, so we are to stop aiding isreal cause' them terrorists don't like it none too much?

comparing what the finns do to what America does is not a very accurate comparison at all.

maineman
08-26-2006, 01:28 PM
I SAID that we would never stop aiding Israel.. you asked a rhetorical question and I answered it...and pointed out that islamic extremists aren't running around the world attacking any and all governments that do not embrace fundamental islam and sharia.

For the neocons to suggest that their goal is worldwide domination and the elimination of all infidels is idiotic fearmongering. They are scary enough as it is... no need to make them into something that they aren't.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 01:35 PM
I SAID that we would never stop aiding Israel.. you asked a rhetorical question and I answered it...and pointed out that islamic extremists aren't running around the world attacking any and all governments that do not embrace fundamental islam and sharia.

For the neocons to suggest that their goal is worldwide domination and the elimination of all infidels is idiotic fearmongering. They are scary enough as it is... no need to make them into something that they aren't.

Don't you be taking that tone with me maine!!

And I was not suggesting that they are seeking world dominace, it's impossible!
I am not making them into nothing more than the dirtbags they are, period!

Now it's obvious that they will attack just about anyone if they are not getting their way, so what to do about that?

Do we not give and or offer aid to muslim nations? should we stop giving and or offering anyone else aid?

Damocles
08-26-2006, 01:38 PM
I SAID that we would never stop aiding Israel.. you asked a rhetorical question and I answered it...and pointed out that islamic extremists aren't running around the world attacking any and all governments that do not embrace fundamental islam and sharia.

For the neocons to suggest that their goal is worldwide domination and the elimination of all infidels is idiotic fearmongering. They are scary enough as it is... no need to make them into something that they aren't.
I personally don't think they are all that scary. Yeah, there are a few people that can get killed by them, but far less than car accidents. Drunk Drivers are far more scary than these people.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 01:41 PM
I personally don't think they are all that scary. Yeah, there are a few people that can get killed by them, but far less than car accidents. Drunk Drivers are far more scary than these people.

Oh my, now you gave em' a reason to start preaching how neocons are gonna open a new front on drunk drivers worldwide because they are an imminent threat!:cof1:

maineman
08-26-2006, 01:59 PM
I don't think that their targets are random. I think they attack in ways designed to influence public opinion so that the public will get the western nation to act in ways that AQ sees as beneficial to their long term plans.

9/11 was designed with two purposes.... 1. to punish us for having troops in Saudi Arabia, for propping up the house of saud, and for propping up Israel.... and 2. to provoke us into retaliating against the arab world by invading, conquering and occupying - hopefully - an oil rich arab country, and in so doing infuriating the arab world, and radicalizing the arab street.

By any measure, 9/11 was a stunning success... and out dimwitted president was played like a fine violin.... and we are poorer, fewere, more despised and less safe because of his blunder. I truly believe that.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 02:08 PM
By any measure, 9/11 was a stunning success... and out dimwitted president was played like a fine violin.... and we are poorer, fewere, more despised and less safe because of his blunder. I truly believe that.

And by all mean it is your right! However you see it there was going to be some sort of action taken for that day, or is that the wrong thought to begin with?

What should of been the proper course of action?

Care4all
08-26-2006, 02:25 PM
And by all mean it is your right! However you see it there was going to be some sort of action taken for that day, or is that the wrong thought to begin with?

What should of been the proper course of action?

are you trying to compare the actions in afghanistan with IRAQ?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 02:31 PM
are you trying to compare the actions in afghanistan with IRAQ?

Arghhhhh, the many twist of a single thread! No, I am not equating the two at all, I simply would of liked to know his answer as to what actions should of been taking after 911 since he thought the administration was playing to the fiddler.

Are you trying to say that it sounds like I am equating the two?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 02:41 PM
Ok Care. dontcha be coming in here dissing me like that and then disappear! :p

maineman
08-26-2006, 02:50 PM
Afghanistan was totally proper. I volunteered to go back on active duty to help Bush fight this war...but when he lost OBL at Tora Bora...seemed to lose interest in him altogether and focus on his real target all along - Iraq - he lost me.

I believe we had the good will of the whole world behind us and would have had no problem building coalitions to fight Al Qaeda all over the globe...but it was not just the liberal democrats in America who thought the Iraq idea was counterproductive.... look at the problems Bush had building a real coalition without bribing countries to join....

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 02:59 PM
Afghanistan was totally proper. I volunteered to go back on active duty to help Bush fight this war...but when he lost OBL at Tora Bora...seemed to lose interest in him altogether and focus on his real target all along - Iraq - he lost me.

I believe we had the good will of the whole world behind us and would have had no problem building coalitions to fight Al Qaeda all over the globe...but it was not just the liberal democrats in America who thought the Iraq idea was counterproductive.... look at the problems Bush had building a real coalition without bribing countries to join....

Brilliant sir, you fell right into Care's question that took the discussion of course!

So while we jump over to the wrongs and rights in the world please explain to me how bush lost OBL in Tora Bora? I was totally unaware that the president himself was even over there leading this manhunt! In fact I was always under the impression that he may of had military advisors and such, silly me.

Now, if a guy slaps you in the face later today at the convenience store will you be coming back here to get approval before you whack him one? Why do we need the approval of anyone to take an action we see fit to take? if all these liberal demos saw it as counterproductive why did we go? and who was bribed into going?

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:07 PM
I understand.... when Harry S. Truman, a good midwestern democrat, had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here" everyone in America understood what that meant. Of COURSE Bush did not PERSONALLY lose Osama in the hills around Tora Bora any more than Harry S. Truman PERSONALLY opened the bomb bay doors of the Enola Gay and dropped the nuke on Hiroshima. Truman, however, never shied away from taking responsibility for it.

In the Bush administration, not only does the guy at the top NEVER take real responsibility for anything that has gone wrong, he doesn't even hold anyone ELSE accountable for the fuck ups. Under George Tenant's watch, our country was attacked by enemies who lived in our midst for months. Robert Mueller's FBI agency personnel were sending urgent emails which were ignored warning of strange arabic men taking flying lessons on commercial airliners but not worrying about learning how to land...NEITHER of those men was fired or punished in any way.

Whether Dubya cares to accept it or not, America knows that the buck stops at his desk and the failures of this administration, from 9/11 to Tora Bora to Abu Ghraib, to Haditha to the civil war raging in Iraq to North Korea's unfettered flexing of military might to Iran's unencumbered expansion of power and influence, sit squarely on his shoulders and on the shoulders of the republicans in congress - and to some extent, the neocon chickenhawk pompom waving supporters that enabled him.

We WILL take the keys away from the republicans.... if not congressionally in '06, then the white house in '08. That party has not shown itself responsible enough to lead. They all need to go sit in the corner and take a long "time out".

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:09 PM
and please don't forget... the vote to authorize force in Iraq was voted FOR by an overwhelming majority of Republicans. In fact, only a handful voted against it. THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE. Deal with it. This is YOUR party's war... and the blood of all those dead GI's is caked on YOUR party's grubby little fingers.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:12 PM
when Harry S. Truman, a good midwestern democrat, had a sign on his desk that said, "The Buck Stops Here" everyone in America understood what that meant. Of COURSE Bush did not PERSONALLY lose Osama in the hills around Tora Bora any more than Harry S. Truman PERSONALLY opened the bomb bay doors of the Enola Gay and dropped the nuke on Hiroshima. Truman, however, never shied away from taking responsibility for it.

In the Bush administration, not only does the guy at the top NEVER take real responsibility for anything that has gone wrong, he doesn't even hold anyone ELSE accountable for the fuck ups.

I recall on May 1, 2003 when Bush landed on that carrier, festooned in an Navy costume, repubs were only too happy to give Bush virtually all the credit for iraq.

Odd, that they are now trying to divert attention from bush, regarding iraq and tora bora.

Truman was a stand up guy who took responsiblity.

Jimmy Carter also never tried to blame anyone else for the iranian hostage situation. Or the failed rescue mission.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:18 PM
and please don't forget... the vote to authorize force in Iraq was voted FOR by an overwhelming majority of Republicans. In fact, only a handful voted against it. THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE. Deal with it. This is YOUR party's war... and the blood of all those dead GI's is caked on YOUR party's grubby little fingers.

Ya know maine, I must wonder if you have a split personality disorder! It strted decently exchanging thoughts bout these here faction, and what dangers are posed by them, and then all of a sudden you are back to you typically far leftist self again. What is it, when a fellow lib changes the thread to something it was'nt it's you que take a change in direction? must be another damn conspiracy!

Yeah, I'll deal with allright, I'll go ahead and take responsibilty for it all seeing that is how you equate an opposing view to bush right away.:rolleyes:

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:20 PM
and JFK bore the responsibility for the Bay of Pigs, even though it was planned on Ike's watch.

I can remember back on politics.com when WRL proclaimed that Bush had "landed a fighter jet on the deck of a carrier in a war zone" to give that "mission accomplished" speech..... his mindless peanut gallery will buy just about anything.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:21 PM
I recall on May 1, 2003 when Bush landed on that carrier, festooned in an Navy costume, repubs were only too happy to give Bush virtually all the credit for iraq.

Odd, that they are now trying to divert attention from bush, regarding iraq and tora bora.

Truman was a stand up guy who took responsiblity.

Jimmy Carter also never tried to blame anyone else for the iranian hostage situation. Or the failed rescue mission.

Shut up shitbrick! you can't speak up for stand up guys so long as you are hiding behind your playdoh shield!


I divert no attention away from nothing, I still believe the iraq invasion was the right thing to do. I don't give a flying hoot who it was that authorized it.

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:22 PM
Ya know maine, I must wonder if you have a split personality disorder! It strted decently exchanging thoughts bout these here faction, and what dangers are posed by them, and then all of a sudden you are back to you typically far leftist self again. What is it, when a fellow lib changes the thread to something it was'nt it's you que take a change in direction? must be another damn conspiracy!

Yeah, I'll deal with allright, I'll go ahead and take responsibilty for it all seeing that is how you equate an opposing view to bush right away.:rolleyes:

I was overzealous. The blood is on Bush's hands - not yours. I have no idea what level of support you gave or continue to give. You are a reasonable guy and I do not want to give you the impression that I feel differently.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:22 PM
I remember the "mission accomplished" speech saying that we had "a long way to go" and that it would "take a long time" and that "we weren't leaving until the job was done"...

Nowadays it seems like so many forget those portions of the speech for the bumpersticker somebody chose to put on that idiotic banner.

I'm never for undeclared war, so don't get me wrong.

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:24 PM
come on.... how many times did we listen to "the insugency will wither away as soon as..... " speeches on here and from elected republicans?

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:28 PM
From elected repubs? I don't remember many. However it is not a crime to predict the future incorrectly. It is a crime to ignore the constitution and vote for or against going to war without a declaration... The only right move would be to sue the SCOTUS for a hearing, not vote. Voting no was participation as much as voting yes in an end-run on the Constitution.

Either Declare War or don't, the Constitution didn't give you all this end-run power that allows all the fricking waffling.

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:30 PM
you're right... not elected republicans.... merely administration lackeys

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:31 PM
I was overzealous. The blood is on Bush's hands - not yours. I have no idea what level of support you gave or continue to give. You are a reasonable guy and I do not want to give you the impression that I feel differently.

Ok, ya had me fooled there for a minute maine! :clink:

Listen, Bush will be in office for a while yet so I am not drawing a conclusion just yet one way or another. I posted in a thread somewhere here that I thought one of the bigger problems this administration has is being vocal about anything.
I honestly don't know what he has taken accountability for, bit I do recall Rumsfeld taking responsibilty for abu gharib, and hate me for this but I can think of worse things that incident.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:36 PM
that I thought one of the bigger problems this administration has is being vocal about anything.


Ain't that a Truth... The whole silence gets to me. Use the freaking office man! Get out there and in the papers informing people. Each time he has done that his numbers went up. The longer he is silent the further they go down. Arrrrgh!

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:37 PM
oh..so can I.... abu ghraib was simply a public relations nightmare...we invaded conquered and occupied Iraq and one of the multitude of shifting reasons for it was a humanitarian one because Saddam had tortured his own people...and then we go and let a bunch of compromising photographs get circulated throughout Iraq and the arab world.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:40 PM
Ain't that a Truth... The whole silence gets to me. Use the freaking office man! Get out there and in the papers informing people. Each time he has done that his numbers went up. The longer he is silent the further they go down. Arrrrgh!

It's a certainty sir! I know the rest will see it otherwise but to be fair about it he has taken a ton of criticism from the left, these are the times he needs to speak out and let people know the opposite otherwise they will buy into a certain amount of it. Now I am not suggesting it does'nt go both ways as I have hear it slung the other way as well!

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:40 PM
I really don't care how good Rumsfeld is, he isn't irreplaceable and it would be better for us if he had been asked to leave...

Now, of course, the time window has shut and it would be all awkward and stupid... *sigh* This guy has more moments of WTF?? than any other President since Carter. Usually I can determine the motivation behind decisions, those two guys are the ones that have had the most baffling moments ever....

Everybody has some. Like going to Arabia and talking down America... or some other "WTF were you thinking?" moment. But those two had them more than any others in Politics for me.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:46 PM
oh..so can I.... abu ghraib was simply a public relations nightmare...we invaded conquered and occupied Iraq and one of the multitude of shifting reasons for it was a humanitarian one because Saddam had tortured his own people...and then we go and let a bunch of compromising photographs get circulated throughout Iraq and the arab world.

Yes, a PR disaster and that's all it was! Say for instance this is something that never came to light during this conflict, do you think it has the same impact?
I recall reading an article in my local paper, someone wrote it suggesting that it should be expected that heads will get cut off when we treat prisoners this way!
With that you have people damn near in support of the bad guys while I guys are getting crucified by the mainstream media about the Geneva Convention, in which the enemy has no need to adhere!

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:49 PM
I remember the "mission accomplished" speech saying that we had "a long way to go" and that it would "take a long time" and that "we weren't leaving until the job was done"...

Nowadays it seems like so many forget those portions of the speech for the bumpersticker somebody chose to put on that idiotic banner.

I'm never for undeclared war, so don't get me wrong.

That speech on the carrier was a victory speech. Bush declared the "battle of Iraq" won. Its as simple as that. Everything else is spin.

maineman
08-26-2006, 07:50 PM
of course not.... but if we ever want to be able to leave Iraq without having to shoot our way out, we need to somehow win the hearts and minds of at least SOME of the people there.

Haditha, by the way, is a different story...that goes beyond mere PR.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:50 PM
you're right... not elected republicans.... merely administration lackeys

The crazy senator from Oklahoma just said last week, that things in iraq were going superb.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:51 PM
That speech on the carrier was a victory speech. Bush declared the "battle of Iraq" won. Its as simple as that. Everything else is spin.
He talked of the continuing problem as they rebuilt Iraq. Anything else is spin. Actually read the transcript. You'll see those very words that I typed above included.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:53 PM
I really don't care how good Rumsfeld is, he isn't irreplaceable and it would be better for us if he had been asked to leave...

Now, of course, the time window has shut and it would be all awkward and stupid... *sigh* This guy has more moments of WTF?? than any other President since Carter. Usually I can determine the motivation behind decisions, those two guys are the ones that have had the most baffling moments ever....

Everybody has some. Like going to Arabia and talking down America... or some other "WTF were you thinking?" moment. But those two had them more than any others in Politics for me.

Its never too late to fire an incompetent secretary of defense. The world would stand up and cheer if Bush did it tommorow - and replaced him with a mainstream competent republican, like James Baker or Colin Powell.

Problem is, its all politics. Bush is willing to keep fucking up, becasue firing rumsfeld might make it look like bush made a mistake.

And rummy might start blabbing to the press, when he is free from the bonds of employment under bush.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:55 PM
He talked of the continuing problem as they rebuilt Iraq. Anything else is spin. Actually read the transcript. You'll see those very words that I typed above included.

yeah, I just read it. He talked about the difficulties in reconstructing iraq, and that some areas were still dangerous because of some saddam dead-enders.

He said nothing about a looming, and deep-rooted insurgency, widespread sectarian violence, or civil war.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:55 PM
Its never too late to fire an incompetent secretary of defense. The world would stand up and cheer if Bush did it tommorow - and replaced him with a mainstream competent republican, like James Baker or Colin Powell.

Problem is, its all politics. Bush is willing to keep fucking up, becasue firing rumsfeld might make it look like bush made a mistake.

And rummy might start blabbing to the press, when he is free from the bonds of employment under bush.
Yeah, but you'll get no positive from firing him over Abu Grabass... I mean really. He should have been fired right then.

And we should expect better from our troops in every way than we expect from the terrorist. I'da been all OVER this if I were the President. Heads would have ROLLED!

Damocles
08-26-2006, 07:56 PM
yeah, I just read it. He talked about the difficulties in reconstructing iraq, and that some areas were still dangerous because of some saddam dead-enders.

He said nothing about a looming, and deep-rooted insurgency, widespread sectarian violence, or civil war.
Nobody would have realistically. Nobody ever says, "We are doomed!" when speaking of the future of their plans... Even when it would be appropriate.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:57 PM
yeah, I just read it. He talked about the difficulties in reconstructing iraq, and that some areas were still dangerous because of some saddam dead-enders.

He said nothing about a looming, and deep-rooted insurgency, widespread sectarian violence, or civil war.

And plenty of people - even in Bush's own State Department - predicted an insurgecy and sectarian strife.

Bush ignored them, and didn't bother to warn the american people that we were facing years, possibly decades, of guerilla war.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 07:57 PM
He talked of the continuing problem as they rebuilt Iraq. Anything else is spin. Actually read the transcript. You'll see those very words that I typed above included.

What one reads and what one interperets from that is whole different animal!:cof1:

Cypress
08-26-2006, 07:59 PM
Yeah, but you'll get no positive from firing him over Abu Grabass... I mean really. He should have been fired right then.

And we should expect better from our troops in every way than we expect from the terrorist. I'da been all OVER this if I were the President. Heads would have ROLLED!

Agree. Rummy should have been gone after abu ghraib. I can't imagine why bush keeps him, other than for political reasons.

Clinton fired his secretary of defense almost immediately, after 18 Rangers were killed in a bungled somali counterinsurgency operation.

Its not hard to fire a cabinet secretary.

maineman
08-26-2006, 08:00 PM
Nobody would have realistically. Nobody ever says, "We are doomed!" when speaking of the future of their plans... Even when it would be appropriate.

I think that I most definitely warned of sunni/shiite sectarian violence. I was not alone....

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 08:01 PM
Bush ignored them, and didn't bother to warn the american people that we were facing years, possibly decades, of guerilla war.

What a maroon, a downright shitbrick! I can't count how many times I have heard him say that it will be a long, long war!
What happens is that shitbricks like yourself figure it's over when it has been enough in your own eyes, the world according to yourselves.

mudflap..........

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:02 PM
What one reads and what one interperets from that is whole different animal!:cof1:
Clearly. It's a largely partisan thing. I really have no dog hunting in this one. I joined the R party because of the whole Fiscal Conservative issue, then all the fiscal conservatives in government disappeared along with the few fighting for small government and personal responsibility.

Cypress
08-26-2006, 08:02 PM
I think that I most definitely warned of sunni/shiite sectarian violence. I was not alone....

Anyone who was tuned into to media outside of Fox News, knew that State Department, and Defense Department sources, as well as middle east experts, were warning of a possible insurgency. One that could be uncontainable and long-lived.

Bush neglected to mention it.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:03 PM
I think that I most definitely warned of sunni/shiite sectarian violence. I was not alone....
Truly, Bush has constantly stated that this will be a long, long war... That he doesn't use your exact language doesn't change that message. It's going to be the long haul...

Cypress
08-26-2006, 08:05 PM
Truly, Bush has constantly stated that this will be a long, long war... That he doesn't use your exact language doesn't change that message. It's going to be the long haul...

There was too much high-fiving, back-slapping, and crows from republicans saying how "Dems got it wrong on Iraq", for me to now buy the revisionist theory that Bush knew about the pandora's box he opened in iraq back in 2003.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 08:07 PM
Anyone who was tuned into to media outside of Fox News, knew that State Department, and Defense Department sources, as well as middle east experts, were warning of a possible insurgency. One that could be uncontainable and long-lived.

Bush neglected to mention it.

speaking of partisan views, this shitbrick can't make a post without making mention to bush, fox, or some other criticism to the right.

Hey Damos, call this shitbrick on what is a good source of media in his eyes, I would love to know.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:08 PM
There was too much high-fiving, back-slapping, and crows from republicans saying how "Dems got it wrong on Iraq", for me to now buy the revisionist theory that Bush knew about the pandora's box he opened in iraq back in 2003.
I agree. But there is also the looooooong track of him constantly saying it will be the long haul for the WOT. Saying that he hasn't faced up to the fact that if we are going to fight it this way it will be tough would be ignoring the "It's hard work, really hard work" talk that has been around since 2001.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:08 PM
speaking of partisan views, this shitbrick can't make a post without making mention to bush, fox, or some other criticism to the right.

Hey Damos, call this shitbrick on what is a good source of media in his eyes, I would love to know.
What does he have you on "ignore"?

Cypress
08-26-2006, 08:08 PM
Truly, Bush has constantly stated that this will be a long, long war... That he doesn't use your exact language doesn't change that message. It's going to be the long haul...

Damo,

Bush and Rummy and Blair are on public record now, as stating they didn't expect an insurgency and guerilla war of this nature, scope, and ferocity.

Their words. Not mine.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:11 PM
Damo,

Bush and Rummy and Blair are on public record now, as stating they didn't expect an insurgency and guerilla war of this nature, scope, and ferocity.

Their words. Not mine.
Hence the "I agree." in the last post that you hadn't read yet. Yet still the Admin has stated that this will take a long time and would probably last longer than his own Presidency. Ignoring those remarks to say, "He thought it was all going to be a cakewalk." is the spin I mentioned.

It takes truly ignoring what is actually stated to pretend that Bush has said it would be other than difficult. He practically shouts it in every speech, including the one he is claiming "victory" in.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 08:11 PM
There was too much high-fiving, back-slapping, and crows from republicans saying how "Dems got it wrong on Iraq", for me to now buy the revisionist theory that Bush knew about the pandora's box he opened in iraq back in 2003.

What a complete an utter tool! that is what this guy lives for, first sign of an opposing view you get the ignore list, gotta have his back patting crew there to agree with him. Truly sad to see someone that almost comes of sounding intelligent actually be the ultimate chump on defending his views because his head has become lopsided with leftwing crapola..... what a shitbrick!

mudflap........

Cypress
08-26-2006, 08:13 PM
I agree. But there is also the looooooong track of him constantly saying it will be the long haul for the WOT. Saying that he hasn't faced up to the fact that if we are going to fight it this way it will be tough would be ignoring the "It's hard work, really hard work" talk that has been around since 2001.

I really wish George Junior had listened to his Daddy and his Daddy's advisors Like Brent Scowcroft. Through back channels, they were reportedly warning the Chimp of what he would face in iraq.

The whole "you break it, you bought it" thing, that Powell warned him.

I wish we could bring back the old-republican guard to run this war and our foreign policy. Its too bloody bad that Bush won't invite Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft into his adminstration.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 08:14 PM
What does he have you on "ignore"?

Yeah, told me so himself because he was insulted by my shitbrick thread, so he put up the playdoh shield...:cof1:

could care less honestly but would love to see what he call a newsource these days...

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:16 PM
I wish he had listened to Powell, I believe strongly in the Powell Doctrine. Overwhelming force. We tried to do it on the cheap.

maineman
08-26-2006, 08:38 PM
There was too much high-fiving, back-slapping, and crows from republicans saying how "Dems got it wrong on Iraq", for me to now buy the revisionist theory that Bush knew about the pandora's box he opened in iraq back in 2003.

I agree....and now that it has turned to shit, they love to point out that some democrats did indeed vote for the use of force resolution - a minority of them, and the R's had enough votes without any D's and nearly every single R was there voting for it...but somehow, this war has become this bipartisan effort. That is clearly bullshit.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:41 PM
I agree....and now that it has turned to shit, they love to point out that some democrats did indeed vote for the use of force resolution - a minority of them, and the R's had enough votes without any D's and nearly every single R was there voting for it...but somehow, this war has become this bipartisan effort. That is clearly bullshit.
LOL. 12 Rs move over and vote with Ds on something and it is touted by your side as "bi-partisan" a bunch of Ds vote for war and it is discounted as only an R vote by your side... Such a dichotomy!

maineman
08-26-2006, 08:41 PM
I agree. But there is also the looooooong track of him constantly saying it will be the long haul for the WOT. Saying that he hasn't faced up to the fact that if we are going to fight it this way it will be tough would be ignoring the "It's hard work, really hard work" talk that has been around since 2001.

Oh..and I know of no one who disagrees with saying that the War on Terror will be a long haul.... it is the war in Iraq, which we now know has nothing really to DO with the war on terror that his administration ALL predicted was going to be a cakewalk. DO we really have to dig out the old Perle, Wolfie, RUmmy, Cheney quotes or will you just stipulate to that?

maineman
08-26-2006, 08:43 PM
LOL. 12 Rs move over and vote with Ds on something and it is touted by your side as "bi-partisan" a bunch of Ds vote for war and it is discounted as only an R vote by your side... Such a dichotomy!

the fact remains...R's were nearly unanimous in their support for the war, and a majority of democrats voted against it. YOu really can't spin that too much.

Damocles
08-26-2006, 08:46 PM
the fact remains...R's were nearly unanimous in their support for the war, and a majority of democrats voted against it. YOu really can't spin that too much.
The fact remains that Rs remain nearly unanimously against most things that are touted by your side as "bi-partisan", in this case far more Ds voted for this than it would take for Rs to vote for one of YOUR "bi-partisan" measures!

It is difficult to spin out of this dichotomy. It is hypocrisy to claim all these "bi-partisan" measures then ignore the bi-partisan nature of this vote!

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 08:46 PM
Oh..and I know of no one who disagrees with saying that the War on Terror will be a long haul.... it is the war in Iraq, which we now know has nothing really to DO with the war on terror that his administration ALL predicted was going to be a cakewalk. DO we really have to dig out the old Perle, Wolfie, RUmmy, Cheney quotes or will you just stipulate to that?

Maine, iraq was a cakewalk right through their army, but who are we fighting with their at the moment?

maineman
08-26-2006, 08:52 PM
whatever... I am quite pleased that both democratic members of Maine's congressional delegation voted against it.

I have been against it from day one...and so has the vast majority of my party's rank and file....it was only the way that Rove played it so that it was a vote about patriotism that made some less staunch dems vote for it.... I won't forgive them and won't vote for any of them in any presidential primary caucus vote.

The fact also remains that republicans on the previous boards were crowing that democrats who opposed this war had it all wrong...and now it is quite clear that we had it all right...and if we hadn't lost 2700 Americans in that war, I would be giddy in the fact that the mud is all over the R's face.... as it is, it is not mud, but BLOOD, so I am just sad and disgusted.

maineman
08-26-2006, 08:58 PM
Maine, iraq was a cakewalk right through their army, but who are we fighting with their at the moment?

do I really have to dig out the quotes? rose petals thrown at our feet? welcomed as liberators? statues of Bush erected in Baghdad?

We are fighting indiginous Iraqis... most of the sunnis we are fighting are former members of the baathist Iraqi army who wisely took off their uniforms and melted into the civilian population so that they could mount a guerrilla insurgency... and the shiites we are fighting want us out of their country. We should oblige them and leave so that we can START fighting the war on islamic extremism and STOP being in the middle of the civil war that was BOUND to happen when the majority shiites who had been subjegated by the minority sunnis gained power upon our toppling of Saddam.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 09:00 PM
The fact also remains that republicans on the previous boards were crowing that democrats who opposed this war had it all wrong...and now it is quite clear that we had it all right...

Perhaps maine if the bunch of ya were more clear on your points, answering opposing questions,and thats all of them, not turning thread into something that they originally were, and maybe understanding an opposing view just may have something to offer if looked at without the democratic goggles on.

Honestly I am not gonna get all caught up in my side or your side because I am not picking a side. I mean really, your party? do they all listen to what you have to say or what? Nah, I'm not getting all caught up in the media hoopla, this one said that, or that one said this, the half of it is bullshit just depends which source of bullshit ya buy the most.

Now damnit, tell me who the hell we are fighting in irag right now!

maineman
08-26-2006, 09:02 PM
asked and answered...ok?

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 09:05 PM
We should oblige them and leave so that we can START fighting the war on islamic extremism and STOP being in the middle of the civil war that was BOUND to happen when the majority shiites who had been subjegated by the minority sunnis gained power upon our toppling of Saddam.

Hmmm, all good ol' iraqians eh? just different factions from the hometown eh?
nonsense, there was known terrorist camps their prior to going in, and now their are terrorists pooring from the borders. I say lay the shit out and let the flies come, then exterminate them....

maineman
08-26-2006, 09:10 PM
actually, the terrorist camps that were there were training palestinian terrorists and Iranian groups.... the VAST majority of folks killing Americans - and killing Iraqis, for that matter - are Iraqis. There really aren't a lot of folks pouring over from other arab countries to fight us...this really is a civil war that we find ourselves in the midst of.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 09:16 PM
actually, the terrorist camps that were there were training palestinian terrorists and Iranian groups.... the VAST majority of folks killing Americans - and killing Iraqis, for that matter - are Iraqis. There really aren't a lot of folks pouring over from other arab countries to fight us...this really is a civil war that we find ourselves in the midst of.

maine, let me make it clear that I am not expressing from any view except my own, I'm not defending any side nor bush. I say terrorist of any kind are only good once they are dead, they are cowardly as a human can get. That other terrorist leader that was nailed over ther, I can never remember the name but I know he was no damn homegrown, was he?

Damocles
08-26-2006, 09:18 PM
maine, let me make it clear that I am not expressing from any view except my own, I'm not defending any side nor bush. I say terrorist of any kind are only good once they are dead, they are cowardly as a human can get. That other terrorist leader that was nailed over ther, I can never remember the name but I know he was no damn homegrown, was he?
al-Zarqawi.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 09:20 PM
al-Zarqawi.

Yeah, that's the dirty bastard!

maineman
08-26-2006, 10:39 PM
Zarqawi was a jordanian.... and I am not saying that there are NO foreign fighters in Iraq...I am saying that they are marginal players. I don't like terrorists either, but they come in lots of flavors and only a few of those have attacking the united states on their agenda. We ought not to spend any time, nor money nor LIVES in fighting those groups who are not intent upon attacking us.

Sir Evil
08-26-2006, 10:47 PM
Zarqawi was a jordanian.... and I am not saying that there are NO foreign fighters in Iraq...I am saying that they are marginal players. I don't like terrorists either, but they come in lots of flavors and only a few of those have attacking the united states on their agenda. We ought not to spend any time, nor money nor LIVES in fighting those groups who are not intent upon attacking us.

Cool, I think thats sensible! I'm not trying to knockdown everything you say, I'm more or less expressing my own view without making an attempt to sound as though I am defending anyone elses cause. I belkieve I said so in a few different threads that I thought iraq was a cause without all the wmd arguments, without the 911 ties, they are all blown out of context in my opinion anyway!

But now maine you say iran has only or basically stengthened their influences in the region, right? Just a thought here, what two countries are on either side of iran? I think they need to play their cards pretty carefully.

maineman
08-26-2006, 10:54 PM
there are actually six countries that border Iran....

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 07:42 AM
there are actually six countries that border Iran....

Ok, to the left and right maybe? :cof1:

maineman
08-27-2006, 08:40 AM
Afghanistan's execise in American imposed democracy is failing miserably. Karzai is nothing more than the Mayor of Kabul, the Taliban is in ascendancy and warlords rule the countryside.... Iraq is degenerating into a bloody civil war.... I really don't think that Iran has a lot to worry about its neighbors to the right and left. Muslims around the globe arerallying around Hezbollah, which means they are rallying around Iran... and we are totally hated throughout the region. If anyone can look at that area and say that, from America's perspective, it is better off now than before we invaded Iraq has some SERIOUS rosy tint on their eyeglasses.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 08:49 AM
Afghanistan's execise in American imposed democracy is failing miserably. Karzai is nothing more than the Mayor of Kabul, the Taliban is in ascendancy and warlords rule the countryside.... Iraq is degenerating into a bloody civil war.... I really don't think that Iran has a lot to worry about its neighbors to the right and left. Muslims around the globe arerallying around Hezbollah, which means they are rallying around Iran... and we are totally hated throughout the region. If anyone can look at that area and say that, from America's perspective, it is better off now than before we invaded Iraq has some SERIOUS rosy tint on their eyeglasses.

Ther ya go again maine automatically assuming what I was leading to was in defense of someones so called rosy picture! Again, I am simply looking at things through MY own eyes.

While you see the taliban as rulers, I see them as a defeated regime no longer in power that is regrouping and creating issues, was that something that was all that unpredictable? no, not really, and that is why they needed to be dismissed as a ruling regime, they are nothing more then a bunch of terrorists themselves.

Now the point I was leading to is that with our troops on either side of iran, our carriers at sea right there, with israel nearing panic mode, iran would be stupid to think they are untouchable.

maineman
08-27-2006, 09:02 AM
I agree with you that Iran would be foolish to take overt military action, but they do not have to... what did our troops in Iran and Afghanistan and our carriers in the arabian sea do to stop Hezbollah in Lebanon? Zip.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 09:10 AM
I agree with you that Iran would be foolish to take overt military action, but they do not have to... what did our troops in Iran and Afghanistan and our carriers in the arabian sea do to stop Hezbollah in Lebanon? Zip.

I think israel will probably prevent that the best they can but admittedly I think they will fail on stopping it all together. With the comments about the position though I was just playing a bit of war games, have an enemy triangled is a pretty good position to be in. Not suggesting anything more than hypothetical crapola, not saying attack, not saying drop the bomb, just an observation.

Hezbollah does present a problem, how do you see things working out once peace keeping troops are in place?

Cypress
08-27-2006, 09:16 AM
LOL. 12 Rs move over and vote with Ds on something and it is touted by your side as "bi-partisan" a bunch of Ds vote for war and it is discounted as only an R vote by your side... Such a dichotomy!

a minority of idiotic and cowardly Dems voted to authorize the use of force in October 2002.

That was almost four years ago.

The war is now bush's sole responsibiliy as commander in chief. The conduct of the war is no longer "bipartisan". Congress's constitutional role effectvely ended in October 2002. Since October 2002, Bush - as commander in chief - has had the SOLE responsibilty for planning and executing the war, and for having a plan to occupy and ultimatley get us out of iraq.

All the mistakes and fuckups of Bush's plan is his and his alone. Dems can't be blamed for it.

Cypress
08-27-2006, 09:23 AM
I wish he had listened to Powell, I believe strongly in the Powell Doctrine. Overwhelming force. We tried to do it on the cheap.

Or to General Brent Scowcroft - Poppy Bush's National Security Advisor - who publically warned Junior not to invade iraq back in the Fall of 2002.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 09:28 AM
The conduct of the war is no longer "bipartisan".


Holy moly mudflap, when did ya discover this one? it was never a bipartisan thing to you to begin with! your level of genius shining strong still I see....:rolleyes:

maineman
08-27-2006, 11:31 AM
I think israel will probably prevent that the best they can but admittedly I think they will fail on stopping it all together. With the comments about the position though I was just playing a bit of war games, have an enemy triangled is a pretty good position to be in. Not suggesting anything more than hypothetical crapola, not saying attack, not saying drop the bomb, just an observation.

Hezbollah does present a problem, how do you see things working out once peace keeping troops are in place?

It really depends on the actual operational mandate that the force commander relays to his troops,and on the makeup of those troops. Let me give you an anecdotal example: when I was there, the UNIFIL troops had battalions from Senegal, Fiji, Ghana, Nigeria, Ireland - each with their own piece of geography. The Fijians and the Irishmen were diligent and professional and did a great job in limiting the flow of arms through their areas and keeping the lid on palestinian troublemaking. The others were not so diligent. If fact, the Nigerian battalion headquarters was a large restaurant commandeered by the UN... the entire officer corps of the battalion spent their entire days playing Monopoly with real money. There were at least ten tables of Monopoly going every day all day and at least 40 officers playing who NEVER went out into the field and therefore, it was like having NO peacekeepers in those areas.

Wait and see.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 11:36 AM
I dount doubt it maine! I lost interest in the situation once I saw France drop the first of their huge platoon in, LOL, watching the two dingy's dash madly for the coast kind of told me that there was'nt going to be a huge task at hand in trying to disarm hezbollah. I did here though that there was going to be a lot more coming but not too faithful that it will do much in the long run.

maineman
08-27-2006, 11:51 AM
again..will the REAL tactical rules of engagement allow robust military action to combat Hezbollaw attempts at fortification and general cross border mischiefr making and will the particular battalions involved have the stomach for it even if they do? Those are some of the big unanswered questions.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 11:55 AM
again..will the REAL tactical rules of engagement allow robust military action to combat Hezbollaw attempts at fortification and general cross border mischiefr making and will the particular battalions involved have the stomach for it even if they do? Those are some of the big unanswered questions.

That is a good question! In your time spent who would you say that you would want their to help out the situation?

maineman
08-27-2006, 12:00 PM
As I said..the Irish and Fijians were first rate soldiers...but I am intrigued by the idea of battalions from muslim nations....I think they would either be VERY good...or very bad. They would either hard line it with Hezbollah or they might just wink and let them pass...I suppose it would probably be better if the UN troops were sunnis.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 12:05 PM
As I said..the Irish and Fijians were first rate soldiers...but I am intrigued by the idea of battalions from muslim nations....I think they would either be VERY good...or very bad. They would either hard line it with Hezbollah or they might just wink and let them pass...I suppose it would probably be better if the UN troops were sunnis.

muslim battalions would be great just for the purpose of showing that not all muslims are for the action of hezbollah. Of course it would be a key question on many minds as to how they would handle it, but I think the very point of it would be good to show that there are some that do indeed want peace.

maineman
08-27-2006, 03:22 PM
you are right...or so it would seem.... I worry about what will happen when muslims are asked to actually take action against muslims...especially if it is shiite muslims against shiites.

Sir Evil
08-27-2006, 05:02 PM
you are right...or so it would seem.... I worry about what will happen when muslims are asked to actually take action against muslims...especially if it is shiite muslims against shiites.

I'm sure it would be an issue. I think I heard on the news that israel asked for willing muslims nations but not 100% sure.