Iraq in flux

[Orangutan]

I reluctantly agree with that but it certainly doesn’t make it fair or balanced. It’s kind of like a political/media lynching if you were to ask me.

Well, I think we ought to make our investigations and trials of such things very public. We need to show people that we don't condone such behavior and do our best to keep it from happening. People need to trust us, and members of the military misbehaving only to have their actions 'swept under the rug' engender trust very little.

Look for yourself if you are genuinely interested, a point I seriously doubt. Google too difficult to manage?

Yours is the burden of proof here. You make the assertion, you back it up.

And Orang loves nothing more than perpetuating bad rumors about Iraq.

I assume you aren't up on your Virgil.

I'd question the motives of anyone who thinks the charging of 6 Marines is "Good news".

Apparently you're not keeping the batteries in your sarcasm detector charged either.

[tucker]

Well, I think we ought to make our investigations and trials of such things very public. We need to show people that we don't condone such behavior and do our best to keep it from happening. People need to trust us, and members of the military misbehaving only to have their actions 'swept under the rug' engender trust very little.

I didn’t say they should be held in private but don’t you think statements like those from Murtha and many others especially in the press go way over the top?

There is a difference between public and politically biased blatant condemnation.

[AMDScooter]

Yours is the burden of proof here. You make the assertion, you back it up.

Not really, I feel no need to point out the blatantly obvious to someone who continually focuses on the negative anyway.

I assume you aren't up on your Virgil.

There is no doubt you ass-u-me much.

Apparently you're not keeping the batteries in your sarcasm detector charged either.

Sarcasm meter is working fine... though your responses have another meter doing overtime.




Coming from you I'd question if it was indeed sarcasm or just more of the same theme of perpetuating any bad rumor floating about. But lets play with being objective here for a moment. Your post stated:

More good news concerning the land between the rivers:

Lets see how your sarcasm argument holds up under scrutiny. Show me where you have EVER posted actual "good" news from Iraq... I anxiously await the slew of links showing your level handed, non-biased, posting habits....

[baghdad bob]

ding, ding, ding....................

alert, alert, damn!



scoot finally got me to grin.


bb

[Poci]

Wow I havent really been intrested in this thread but based on the little I have read I think the only one in here who doesnt swim in the nile river is Orangutan.

Scooter,the fact that you think Iraq is living in "relative peace" is amazing.Who convinced you of that? FOX news and Bill O'reily?Do you call his show and praise him as the next messiah and tell him how stupid liberals and tree huggers are?

[AMDScooter]

Wow I havent really been intrested in this thread but based on the little I have read I think the only one in here who doesnt swim in the nile river is Orangutan.

Scooter,the fact that you think Iraq is living in "relative peace" is amazing.Who convinced you of that? FOX news and Bill O'reily?Do you call his show and praise him as the next messiah and tell him how stupid liberals and tree huggers are?

^^^^
hypocrite

a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

I dont even have to read them I just turn on the news and I see whats going on in Iraq.

[Poci]

Plz enlighten me on how Im a hypocrite?
Why cause I watch CNN sometimes?

Heres a definition you seem to not comprehend:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/denial

[jimzinsocal]

Heres one from one of Orangs favorites. I was gonna remove the name but I know Orang can be objective when he reads. Any arguement with this Orang...an article/post from one of those "march in lockstep" conservatives?

Our Good Friend Prime Minister Maliki [Andy McCarthy]
When I stepped back for a breather about a week ago, we were discussing (see, e.g., here, here and here) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Iran-friendly prime minister of Iraq who supports Moqtada Sadr and Hezbollah and who had, controversially, been given the honor of addressing a joint session of Congress. (Youssef Ibrahim's dismay is detailed here.)

American forces are now risking their lives to bring stability to Iraq by purging Baghdad of terrorists — such as Sadr's militia (the Mahdi Army) — who are fomenting sectarian civil war. In the balance hangs the outcome in Iraq, since if Baghdad cannot be stabilized it is hard to see how this ends well. So, once again, Maliki has a choice of siding with us or siding with the Iran-backed Sadr. Guess what he's choosing? The Wall Street Journal reports this morning:

Iraq's prime minister sharply criticized a U.S.-led attack on a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad, exposing a rift with his American partners on security tactics, as 28 people were killed Tuesday in a series of bombings and shootings.Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's criticism late Monday was delivered hours after a pre-dawn air and ground attack on an area of Sadr City, the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, said he was "very angered and pained" by the operation, warning that it could undermine his efforts toward national reconciliation. "Reconciliation cannot go hand in hand with operations that violate the rights of citizens this way," he said Monday night. "This operation used weapons that are unreasonable to detain someone — like using planes." He apologized to the Iraqi people for the operation and said "this won't happen again."

To be fair here, the differences over how to deal with the deteriorating situation are not limited to Maliki. The Journal elaborates:

Concerned by the cycle of violence, President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, met with the top U.S. commander in Iraq on Monday to discuss security operations in Baghdad. Mr. Talabani said he told , Gen. George W. Casey Jr. "it is in no one's interest to have a confrontation" with Mr. Sadr's movement. ... The public position taken by Messrs. Maliki and Talabani signal serious differences between Iraqi politicians and both U.S. and Iraqi military officials on how to restore order and deal with armed groups, many of which have links to political parties.

Can Iraq really be won without having a confrontation with "Sadr's movement" and other Hezbollah/Hamas-style armed "political parties"? It's doubtful that our military thinks so, which is obviously why operations like yesterday's are underway. If the terrorists are not to be brought to heel, what exactly is the Maliki/Talabani vision of the new Iraq?

And if Maliki is serious that operations like yesterday's — which our guys clearly thought was necessary to achieve American objectives — "won't happen again," isn't it fair to ask what we're doing here? Americans already doubtful about this war are not going to warm to the notion that Maliki — not our commanders — decides what tactics will be used.
Posted at 12:25 PM

[tucker]

I was thinking along those same lines this morning. I’m not at all sure I have confidence in the Iraqi government. When they start treating the USA as the problem and not a credible solution for their problems it’s time to step back and take a real good look at what is happening. Add in the idea of a civil war and the road gets really rough.

I have a feeling it is starting to get real close to departure time. At the least I would start pulling some frontline troops back to secure locations within Iraq, watch and listen for a while. Either they play ball with us or we take or ball and go home. We need to make certain they want a representative form of government and not sectarianism or a theocracy.

I’m certainly not a dove but I starting to get some real bad feelings about Iraq and I sure would like to know what the heck is really happening.

It’s really a shame when you can’t be certain you are getting accurate reports from our government and the reporting from the media is a complete sham.

Jeez what a dilemma.

[Orangutan]

Not really, I feel no need to point out the blatantly obvious to someone who continually focuses on the negative anyway.

No. You make the assertion, you have to back it up with evidence. Until you do, your claim is invalid. Either you provide the evidence or deal with being wrong.

There is no doubt you ass-u-me much.

So you are familiar with the quotation. Why spout off then if you knew what I was talking about?

Sarcasm meter is working fine... though your responses have another meter doing overtime.

How clever.

Coming from you I'd question if it was indeed sarcasm or just more of the same theme of perpetuating any bad rumor floating about. But lets play with being objective here for a moment. Your post stated:

Lets see how your sarcasm argument holds up under scrutiny. Show me where you have EVER posted actual "good" news from Iraq... I anxiously await the slew of links showing your level handed, non-biased, posting habits....

I don't recall posting any actual 'good news' about Iraq. Hence the use of the phrase. You're just about the only person here crowing about the 'good' done in Iraq, when all we have is evidence to the contrary. If you are so right and there is so much 'good news' concerning Iraq, you should have little trouble finding and posting it here for us.

Heres one from one of Orangs favorites. I was gonna remove the name but I know Orang can be objective when he reads. Any arguement with this Orang...an article/post from one of those "march in lockstep" conservatives?

Oh don't worry, I always check to see what your sources are when you post blocks of text.

And your guy makes some good points; things are worrisome. I've posted the saying before here, the adage about "me against my brother". It rings true to this day. The Kurds are the most organised and willing to cooperate in this whole deal; it's a shame we can't create an independent Kurdistan up there out of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey.

We need to make certain they want a representative form of government and not sectarianism or a theocracy.

That's one of the first things that should've been done before the war ever happened. Instead, our glorious leaders decided to impose a form of government on them. Brilliant strategy. I suppose you reap what you sow.

[tucker]

That's one of the first things that should've been done before the war ever happened. Instead, our glorious leaders decided to impose a form of government on them. Brilliant strategy. I suppose you reap what you sow.

How do you determine that when Iraq was in the grips of a ruthless dictator? I don’t think there was much of an opportunity to enter Iraq to do pre-war polling.

What I was implying is the need for constant reevaluation and adjustments.

[jimzinsocal]

^^Orangs post

Oh don't worry, I always check to see what your sources are when you post blocks of text.

"And your guy makes some good points; things are worrisome. I've posted the saying before here, the adage about "me against my brother". It rings true to this day. The Kurds are the most organised and willing to cooperate in this whole deal; it's a shame we can't create an independent Kurdistan up there out of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey."


Yeah. Have you seen the Kurds site? I posted it somewhere. Pretty surprising

here

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

[Orangutan]

How do you determine that when Iraq was in the grips of a ruthless dictator? I don’t think there was much of an opportunity to enter Iraq to do pre-war polling.

What I was implying is the need for constant reevaluation and adjustments.

Well, that's the thing: it was predicted before the war. Things are progressing very much like was anticipated: the Kurds are running their part of the country really well while the Shi'a are beating the crap out of the Sunni and vice versa. Saddam was a Sunni, hence the Sunnis were in power even though they were a minority. This caused lots of enmity to build between Shi'a and Sunni, as the Shi'a had little say but were the majority. Now, the Shi'a can wrest control of the government and stick it to the Sunni. They're right next to Iran, the Shi'a megastate, meaning they can get lots of support. Democracy has never existed in the region and is a thing very foreign to the people there. They didn't want Saddam, but they don't want the U.S. or its ideas either.

Yeah. Have you seen the Kurds site? I posted it somewhere. Pretty surprising

here

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Oh yeah. We better not abandon the Kurds again; they're a voice of reason and temperance in a world of religious asshattery.

[tucker]

Well, that's the thing: it was predicted before the war. Things are progressing very much like was anticipated: the Kurds are running their part of the country really well while the Shi'a are beating the crap out of the Sunni and vice versa. Saddam was a Sunni, hence the Sunnis were in power even though they were a minority. This caused lots of enmity to build between Shi'a and Sunni, as the Shi'a had little say but were the majority. Now, the Shi'a can wrest control of the government and stick it to the Sunni. They're right next to Iran, the Shi'a megastate, meaning they can get lots of support. Democracy has never existed in the region and is a thing very foreign to the people there. They didn't want Saddam, but they don't want the U.S. or its ideas either.

Orang, my biggest concern isn’t pre-war predictions or how and why we got there my biggest concern is finding out what the hell is happening right now.

You can’t get the truth from the media they editorialize everything to fit their own particular agenda and you can’t get the unbiased facts from your senator or congressman they politicize everything. The Bush administration is the worst I’ve ever at communicating with the people.

What I would like to see is a weekly or even monthly unbiased outline or summary of what is actually happening. I want to be able read about everything good and/or everything bad. I want to know about the accomplishments and the setbacks.

If I had the facts I think I’m intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions.

What I don’t want is a bunch of biased bull-pucky that nobody can figure out.

I don’t think that is too much to ask for.

[otoc]

Orang, my biggest concern isn’t pre-war predictions or how and why we got there my biggest concern is finding out what the hell is happening right now.

You can’t get the truth from the media they editorialize everything to fit their own particular agenda and you can’t get the unbiased facts from your senator or congressman they politicize everything. The Bush administration is the worst I’ve ever at communicating with the people.

What I would like to see is a weekly or even monthly unbiased outline or summary of what is actually happening. I want to be able read about everything good and/or everything bad. I want to know about the accomplishments and the setbacks.

If I had the facts I think I’m intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions.

What I don’t want is a bunch of biased bull-pucky that nobody can figure out.

I don’t think that is too much to ask for.

I hear you and agree to a point on this.

We are there and have to deal with it. Cut and run like some say is a disaster waiting to happen.

On the other hand how we got there is very important too. There are dictators all around the world. We do not have the resources to deal with them all. Why this one?

To me it's a parallel course. Deal with the current and hold the administration that got us there to task. I firmly believe this is not a liberal concern. It should concern us all and does nothing to affect the current situation. What affects the current situation is to get the infrastructure back on track in Iraq to make the lives of the people better.

Once they are happy they will allow what is right for them to occur and live in piece. As long as they are not, we will see Iraq be the incubator.

Unless we gear up for WW3. Then it all changes.