Why Dixie is Wrong....Again....

C

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
Dixie asserted that if we shut down the border to Iran (and syria), the insurgency would end because the insurgents are simply a proxy for iran, and are reliant on them for weapons and money.

I pointed out, that the insurgency is self-sufficient in terms of money (corrupt Iraqi officials in the government and oil industry), and can buy arms on the international black market - independent of Iran. In short, that shutting down the iran border isn't a magic bullet....

Who's right? We report, you decide:


Bush's friends the Saudis are funding the insurgency, I mean the terrorists, in Iraq


From AP:

Saudis funding Sunni Insurgents

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents....

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgency_saudi
 
Did Bush invade the wrong country ? After all most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi. And didn't OBL come from there as well ?
 
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents.

It's nice to know you are putting so much stock in the Baker Report and the ISG. You'll be disappointed to know, on page 38, the report specifically says we should not engage in a precipitous withdrawal, as you've continuously suggested. They also nixed the idea of partitioning Iraq, another pinhead idea. They advocate sending more troops to Iraq to train the Iraqis and finish the job, contrary to your 'bring them home NOW' strategy.

I am pleased to see you using the Baker Report to establish your points, it shows that you respect the report and are willing to go with the plan it lays out for Iraq. Now that we are on the same page, this will be a good thing, maybe we can actually get things accomplished in Iraq now.

By the way, showing that the Saudis are funding the insurgents, is not proving me wrong in any respect. I never claimed the Saudis weren't funding the insurgents, just that Syria and Iran were assisting them, and they are. The fact that the Baker Report found evidence of Saudi funding, doesn't erase the fact of Syrian and Iranian support. In fact, the Baker Report even addresses Iranian and Syrian involvement and how to deal with it.

Once again, what we have is a pinhead who wants to make Dixie wrong by default, with nothing but diversion and rhetoric. It's a nice trick, and I am certain it will impress your pinhead buddies, but it doesn't really prove Dixie wrong about anything.
 
uscitizen said:
Did Bush invade the wrong country ? After all most of the 911 terrorists were Saudi. And didn't OBL come from there as well ?
Click to expand...


Oh this is just a brilliant idea, Bush should have invaded our only strategic ally in the region, and our main supplier of oil. They should have invaded Mecca, because the level of outrage from radical Muslims would have been far less than it was for invading Iraq. Plus, we wouldn't have to worry about arguing with all you pinheads, you would completely support that war, because you've already justified it. Maybe you're right, Bush should have invaded the Saudis instead, then we would be winning this war instead of trying to find a way to lose.
 
uscitizen said:
Dixie, Saudi Arabia is full of Muslims as well, so is UAE.....
Click to expand...

My goodness uscitizen, those drugs you were doing yesterday, must have made you hallucinate and read something that wasn't posted by me! I don't believe I have ever stated that there were no Muslims in Saudi Arabia or the UAE. I am fully aware there are Muslims in those places, as there are Muslims in almost every country.
 
Dixie said:
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents.

It's nice to know you are putting so much stock in the Baker Report and the ISG. You'll be disappointed to know, on page 38, the report specifically says we should not engage in a precipitous withdrawal, as you've continuously suggested. They also nixed the idea of partitioning Iraq, another pinhead idea. They advocate sending more troops to Iraq to train the Iraqis and finish the job, contrary to your 'bring them home NOW' strategy.

I am pleased to see you using the Baker Report to establish your points, it shows that you respect the report and are willing to go with the plan it lays out for Iraq. Now that we are on the same page, this will be a good thing, maybe we can actually get things accomplished in Iraq now.

By the way, showing that the Saudis are funding the insurgents, is not proving me wrong in any respect. I never claimed the Saudis weren't funding the insurgents, just that Syria and Iran were assisting them, and they are. The fact that the Baker Report found evidence of Saudi funding, doesn't erase the fact of Syrian and Iranian support. In fact, the Baker Report even addresses Iranian and Syrian involvement and how to deal with it.

Once again, what we have is a pinhead who wants to make Dixie wrong by default, with nothing but diversion and rhetoric. It's a nice trick, and I am certain it will impress your pinhead buddies, but it doesn't really prove Dixie wrong about anything.
Click to expand...

"By the way, showing that the Saudis are funding the insurgents, is not proving me wrong in any respect. I never claimed the Saudis weren't funding the insurgents, just that Syria and Iran were assisting them, and they are."


You said Iran and Syria were the problem - "PERIOD" - quote, end quote.


-DIXIE: “The problem is funding and assistance coming from Syria and Iran, and security of the borders. Period.”


http://justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=40796&highlight=iran+syria#post40796
 
You said Iran and Syria were the problem - "PERIOD" - quote, end quote.

Well they certainly are the main problem. If we eliminate the weapons and jihadists coming from Syria and Iran, I feel confident the US can work with their allies, the Saudis, to eliminate any residual funding of the remaining insurgents. If not, I would advocate sealing the border to SA as well. If I somehow lead you to believe that ONLY Iran and Syria were the problem in Iraq, I am dreadfully sorry you misinterpreted me! I apologize, and want to clarify that I never intended my words to be taken so literally.

The fact of the matter is, alQaeda is a global terror organization, they are present in over 100 countries around the world, and the insurgents are receiving support and funding from them, which means that over 100 countries are indirectly involved with funding and aiding the insurgents. I'm not even stupid enough to think we can invade and attack over 100 countries at one time, and I think you are smart enough to know why this would be foolish.
 
Dixie said:
You said Iran and Syria were the problem - "PERIOD" - quote, end quote.

Well they certainly are the main problem. If we eliminate the weapons and jihadists coming from Syria and Iran, I feel confident the US can work with their allies, the Saudis, to eliminate any residual funding of the remaining insurgents. If not, I would advocate sealing the border to SA as well. If I somehow lead you to believe that ONLY Iran and Syria were the problem in Iraq, I am dreadfully sorry you misinterpreted me! I apologize, and want to clarify that I never intended my words to be taken so literally.

The fact of the matter is, alQaeda is a global terror organization, they are present in over 100 countries around the world, and the insurgents are receiving support and funding from them, which means that over 100 countries are indirectly involved with funding and aiding the insurgents. I'm not even stupid enough to think we can invade and attack over 100 countries at one time, and I think you are smart enough to know why this would be foolish.
Click to expand...



Well they certainly are the main problem. If we eliminate the weapons and jihadists coming from Syria and Iran, I feel confident the US can work with their allies, the Saudis, to eliminate any residual funding of the remaining insurgents.

ROTFLMAO!

Our "allies" the saudis? Home of the 9/11 hijackers?


If not, I would advocate sealing the border to SA as well.

LMAO! Do you know how many troops it would take to seal the Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi borders? WAY more than what we have now. Maybe we DO need a draft. The soviet red army spent 8 years trying to seal the pakistan/afghan border, and were unsuccessful. And then there's Jordan. The Jordanian desert probably has many smuggling routes into Iraq.


The fact of the matter is, alQaeda is a global terror organization, they are present in over 100 countries around the world, and the insurgents are receiving support and funding from them, which means that over 100 countries are indirectly involved with funding and aiding the insurgents

Okay, so you're catching on. Dealing with Iran and Syria won't solve the problem. The insurgents aren't simply "proxies" for Iran and Syria, as you lied about earlier. The insurgents are capable of recieving support, and are self-sustaining for a wide variety of reasons.
 
LMAO! Do you know how many troops it would take to seal the Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi borders? WAY more than what we have now. Maybe we DO need a draft. The soviet red army spent 8 years trying to seal the pakistan/afghan border, and were unsuccessful. And then there's Jordan. The Jordanian desert probably has many smuggling routes into Iraq.

I didn't say we should place troops on the borders, that is quite impossible. I don't think we need a draft as long as people are signing up and re-enlisting voluntarily in record numbers. There is also no way to completely end any smuggling into Iraq, it doesn't matter what we do, including putting troops on the borders.

Okay, so you're catching on. Dealing with Iran and Syria won't solve the problem. The insurgents aren't simply "proxies" for Iran and Syria, as you lied about earlier. The insurgents are capable of recieving support, and are self-sustaining for a wide variety of reasons.

Effectively ending the support coming from Syria and Iran, will effectively end the majority of trouble in Iraq, and yes, the insurgents are acting as proxies for Syria and Iran, the Baker Report says as much, and recommends diplomacy with those governments. The insurgents are receiving support from countries other than Syria and Iran, but it is not substantial in comparison.

I've caught on a long time ago, you are the one who previously claimed all the trouble in Iraq was internal, and not coming from anyone other than pissed off Iraqis. You were wrong about that, and have yet to admit it.... is that coming anytime soon, or should we stop holding our breath?

No, it seems that the pinheads are finally catching on, that we can't just pick up our marbles and go home, that we can't just leave the place in its current condition and withdraw into our own cocoon, and that this IS the central front in the war on terror, like it or not. In the past few weeks, we've heard less and less from the nutbags who want to just throw up our hands and surrender to the terrorists, and more and more from people who genuinely want to resolve the problems and come home victorious in some way.

At least now, we are having a dialogue, and not just going through the daily routine of bashing and trashing Bush. At least now, we are beginning to come together and make a unified bipartisan effort to accomplish something worthwhile in Iraq. At least now, some people are making an honest attempt to work together and find a reasonable resolution to the problems, rather than just pointing fingers and hurling shit bombs at the president. It's a start!
 
signing up and reenlisting in record numbers ???

heck some of them can't get out because their time has been extended.

Huffing paint again dix ?
 
Dixie - just an FYI - you sound like a total girl when you write.

I can't speak for Cypress or anyone else on the left, but I fully advocate implementing the entire Baker report recommendations as written. I may not agree with the entire thing, but no one WILL agree with the entire thing. It's what we have, and we should go with it (and not cherrypick from it, as Bush seems to be indicating he will do).
 
Dixie said:
LMAO! Do you know how many troops it would take to seal the Iranian, Syrian, and Saudi borders? WAY more than what we have now. Maybe we DO need a draft. The soviet red army spent 8 years trying to seal the pakistan/afghan border, and were unsuccessful. And then there's Jordan. The Jordanian desert probably has many smuggling routes into Iraq.

I didn't say we should place troops on the borders, that is quite impossible. I don't think we need a draft as long as people are signing up and re-enlisting voluntarily in record numbers. There is also no way to completely end any smuggling into Iraq, it doesn't matter what we do, including putting troops on the borders.

Okay, so you're catching on. Dealing with Iran and Syria won't solve the problem. The insurgents aren't simply "proxies" for Iran and Syria, as you lied about earlier. The insurgents are capable of recieving support, and are self-sustaining for a wide variety of reasons.

Effectively ending the support coming from Syria and Iran, will effectively end the majority of trouble in Iraq, and yes, the insurgents are acting as proxies for Syria and Iran, the Baker Report says as much, and recommends diplomacy with those governments. The insurgents are receiving support from countries other than Syria and Iran, but it is not substantial in comparison.

I've caught on a long time ago, you are the one who previously claimed all the trouble in Iraq was internal, and not coming from anyone other than pissed off Iraqis. You were wrong about that, and have yet to admit it.... is that coming anytime soon, or should we stop holding our breath?

No, it seems that the pinheads are finally catching on, that we can't just pick up our marbles and go home, that we can't just leave the place in its current condition and withdraw into our own cocoon, and that this IS the central front in the war on terror, like it or not. In the past few weeks, we've heard less and less from the nutbags who want to just throw up our hands and surrender to the terrorists, and more and more from people who genuinely want to resolve the problems and come home victorious in some way.

At least now, we are having a dialogue, and not just going through the daily routine of bashing and trashing Bush. At least now, we are beginning to come together and make a unified bipartisan effort to accomplish something worthwhile in Iraq. At least now, some people are making an honest attempt to work together and find a reasonable resolution to the problems, rather than just pointing fingers and hurling shit bombs at the president. It's a start!
Click to expand...


I support implementing the Baker commision report IN FULL. Including withdrawing american combat forces by 2008.

I, Wes Clark, John Kerry, and other democrats have said for YEARS that we have to talk to and engage the regional neighbors - including Iran and Syria. I'm glad you finally agree. I've never denied that syria and iran are partially responsible for helping the militias and insurgents. I previously pointed out that virtually every civil war in the last century, had outside powers assissting the warring factions.

And I've said that MOST of the insurgents and militias are indigenous iraqis. Not foreign fighters.

I believe that answers all your questions.
 
Last edited:
"I support implementing the Baker commision report IN FULL."

I figured you did. Dixie is trying to pull some twisted, desperate "gotcha," and make like the Bushies were looking for a bipartisan consensus change of course all along.

I wish he could talk to his friends like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, et al., who are trying to rally their listeners against this thing with everything they have....
 
I'm glad you all agree with Baker, like I said, it's at least a start! It beats the hell out of the endless bashing and trashing and whining and moaning, and actually gets down to real strategy and actions we can implement.

I agree with most of Baker, and if we adopt the strategy completely, it will be fine with me, I won't complain. I think pinheads have misconstrued some things, however, and I hope that doesn't cause a problem in the future. For instance, Baker makes no stipulation as to timetables for withdrawing forces, it suggests that we should withdraw most combat forces by 2008, but very clearly states, this is dependent on the conditions in Iraq. I can go with that, if everything goes okay, and we can get the Iraqis trained by then, I'm fine with it!

Baker completely takes off the table, the bird-brained liberal ideas of partitioning Iraq or precipitously withdrawing our forces (cut-n-run) in Iraq. It clearly states that these are suggestions we can dismiss, in finding a solution. I'm glad to hear this, as it will reduce the number of idiots out there, who are still advocating such nonsense.

Baker also makes reference to 'talking with Syria and Iran' and I think we are already doing this to some degree. I have no problem with us engaging them in dialogue and trying to bring them on board with stabilizing Iraq. If this can be accomplished through diplomacy, I am all for it! Many people simply don't believe it will do any good to talk to them, since they are the ones primarily responsible for supporting the insurgency, but I believe it's always worth a shot to give diplomacy a try. In all objective honesty, it's better for Iran and Syria to have a stabilized Iraq, so there is hope this can be diplomatically resolved.

The important thing to remember here is, we are now being productive with the dialogue. We are now starting to talk about things we can do, and ways to handle the problems in Iraq. Before, all we heard was noise and distortion, politicized rhetoric designed to undermine the war and destroy Bush. It seems that the elections, as well as Baker, have somehow changed the tone from the left, and we are now getting reasonable dialogue from them, and a genuine effort to work together on the problem. This is a major step in the right direction, in my opinion.
 
And I've said that MOST of the insurgents and militias are indigenous iraqis. Not foreign fighters.

And according to Baker and the ISG, you were completely wrong about this.
 
"The important thing to remember here is, we are now being productive with the dialogue. We are now starting to talk about things we can do, and ways to handle the problems in Iraq. Before, all we heard was noise and distortion, politicized rhetoric designed to undermine the war and destroy Bush. It seems that the elections, as well as Baker, have somehow changed the tone from the left, and we are now getting reasonable dialogue from them, and a genuine effort to work together on the problem. This is a major step in the right direction, in my opinion."

Would you REALLY contend that the White House opened up its doors & arms to new ideas and a fresh, bipartisan approach prior to the election, Dix?

It's absurd how you say the elections "changed the tone of the left." You are truly hopeless. If anything, the elections forced Bush to finally face reality & LISTEN for a change (and the jury is still out on whether he will or not; as I have said repeatedly, this is a defining moment for Bush & whatever legacy he might hope to have).

I'm glad you're on board with Baker, though. As I said before, the loudest voices on YOUR side (Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al.), are calling it a "surrender plan" and doing their very best to rally their listeners against it....
 
Dixie said:
Cypress: And I've said that MOST of the insurgents and militias are indigenous iraqis. Not foreign fighters.

DIXIE: And according to Baker and the ISG, you were completely wrong about this.
Click to expand...


Really Dixie, it's not neccessary for you to lie:



*Iraq Study Group Report:

“The insurgency comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected sunni Arab Iraqis, and common criminals. Al Qaeda is responsible for a small portion of the violence in Iraq, but that included some of the more spectacular attacks, large truck bombs, and attacks on significant religious or political targets. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run and composed of sunni Arabs. Foreign fighters - numbering an estimated 1,300 - play a supporting role or carry out suicide missions.”


http://www.c-span.org/pdf/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top