Premier Rock Forum

Rick Reuben wrote: Al Qaeda, Iran and Sunni and shi'a militias were not warring in Iraq, until the US invaded the country!

True. Before the US invaded Iraq, shias und kurds couldn't fight sunnis, because there was absolute baathist sunni rule over shi'its and kurds, pretty much sectarian and racist apartheid rule of one ethnic sectarian group about all the others. (Just like it's practice in Syria nowadays, where alawit muslims rule all other ethnic and religious groups of that country.) Much better than nowadays, eh? If only Saddam would return and restore peace and order to Iraq! And put down those rebelling dogs in northern and southern Iraq with poison gas like he did in the 80ties.

BTW, where were you when Saddam was ruling Iraq? Did you protest against his dictatorship? Did you get mad about the atrocities he commited against Kurds and Shias? Or do you only care about atrocities or alleged atrocities you can attribute to the United States? American anti-war activists only care about wars in which America is involved. If the arabs slaughter each other, they just jawn. It's the same with european anti-war activists though..

Well, I admire the Iraqis for standing up against Al-Qaida and for fighting for their future against all odds. And their enemies include american anti-war activists who want to stab them in the back and abandon them in their struggle for peace and democracy in Mesopotamia. My personal idol is Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal AlDin who sums up pretty well why America had to remove Saddam in this TV debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLnMk-bO8w

Grenouille wrote:

Rick Reuben wrote: Al Qaeda, Iran and Sunni and shi'a militias were not warring in Iraq, until the US invaded the country!

True. Before the US invaded Iraq, shias und kurds couldn't fight sunnis, because there was absolute baathist sunni rule over shi'its and kurds, pretty much sectarian and racist apartheid rule of one ethnic sectarian group about all the others. (Just like it's practice in Syria nowadays, where alawit muslims rule all other ethnic and religious groups of that country.) Much better than nowadays, eh? If only Saddam would return and restore peace and order to Iraq! And put down those rebelling dogs in northern and southern Iraq with poison gas like he did in the 80ties.

BTW, where were you when Saddam was ruling Iraq? Did you protest against his dictatorship? Did you get mad about the atrocities he commited against Kurds and Shias? Or do you only care about atrocities or alleged atrocities you can attribute to the United States? American anti-war activists only care about wars in which America is involved. If the arabs slaughter each other, they just jawn. It's the same with european anti-war activists though..

Well, I admire the Iraqis for standing up against Al-Qaida and for fighting for their future against all odds. And their enemies include american anti-war activists who want to stab them in the back and abandon them in their struggle for peace and democracy in Mesopotamia. My personal idol is Iraqi MP Iyad Jamal AlDin who sums up pretty well why America had to remove Saddam in this TV debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzLnMk-bO8w

I'm impressed by the number of dumb things you said in this post. Sadly, I'm at work and have some shit to do, so I can't go point for point. I'm sure someone else will though. Fine work.

Thanks Rick. See Grenouille? I told you someone else would.

I also just want to point out that it's foolish to say that American anti-war activists are not concerned with wars that America is not involved in, and even more foolish to criticize them for being especially concerned with the wars their country wages. Those are the wars they'll (we'll, I guess I'm and anit-war activist even though I don't activate much) be able to have the most effect on, given that the government Americans elect is the only government answerable to them, so it obviously makes the pragmatic and logical sense that the US anti-war movement would be most concerned with US wars of aggression. Just to pull another topic for illustration, I think you'll find a number of Americans are concerned with the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Now, the US is definitely involved with this, in that the US supports Israel and the fucking over of the Palestinians, but it's in a more behind the scenes way, so might qualify as a rebuttal to your argument. Oh, and then there's Burma too. No American activists are in any way concerned with Burma. No sir.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Grenouille wrote:BTW, where were you when Saddam was ruling Iraq?

In America, watching the military-industrial complex frame him- after I watched the CIA and the military-industrial complex build him.

Well, the Kurds of Northern Iraq will be eternally grateful to you for that!

Oh wait, they've built a memorial for the American soldiers who died fighting for their freedom.

In Kurdistan, to take a few salient examples, there is a memorial of gratitude being built for fallen American soldiers. "We are planning," said the region's prime minister, Nechirvan Barzani, in his smart new office in the Kurdish capital of Erbil, "to invite their relatives to the unveiling."

slincire wrote: I also just want to point out that it's foolish to say that American anti-war activists are not concerned with wars that America is not involved in, and even more foolish to criticize them for being especially concerned with the wars their country wages.

Actually, I was unfair and polemic when I posted that anti-war in america demonstrators don't protest other wars. There have been great demonstrations against the genocide in Darfur in America, which i appriciate alot. Something you won't see in Europe. Over here in Europe, you see 500.000 people demonstrating against the american-led liberation of Iraq in Berlin, but only 100 show up to demonstrate against genocide in Darfur. Well, only few germans care when muslim arabs murder black muslims. Most jawn at that. But when it's Americans, they have some other motivation that brings them to the streets.

But how many people do you expect to protest against atrocities committed in the Middle East after America draws back from Iraq? I don't expect a hell of a lot.

slincire wrote:Those are the wars they'll (we'll, I guess I'm and anit-war activist even though I don't activate much) be able to have the most effect on, given that the government Americans elect is the only government answerable to them, so it obviously makes the pragmatic and logical sense that the US anti-war movement would be most concerned with US wars of aggression.

Are there any US wars who are not "wars of aggression" to many so-called anti-war activists?

slincire wrote:Just to pull another topic for illustration, I think you'll find a number of Americans are concerned with the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Now, the US is definitely involved with this, in that the US supports Israel and the fucking over of the Palestinians, but it's in a more behind the scenes way, so might qualify as a rebuttal to your argument.

It doesn't qualify as a rebuttal. Israel is the closest ally to the US, so it's natural that anti-war activists who only care about wars America is involved into are protesting against the closest ally of America. The same people never demonstrated against the Kashmir conflict, which is in many aspects similar to the palestinian-israeli conflict: began at about the same year (1947 vs. 1948), when two states emerged out of a former british possession/mandate, one state is muslim, the other non-muslim, populations belonging to both religious groups were driven out of disputed land, conflict is going on until today, mostly terrorism and counter-terrorism going on, even though war got hot several times. But so what? Neither jews nor americans are involved into that one, so it's not sexy to the anti-war crowd.

You should also ask yourself why there were demonstrations against Israel's alleged war crimes during the fighting at Jenin, while really noone cared when lebanese army fought palestinian terrorists in Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, when hunderds of people were killed and most of the 30,000 palestinians living at Nahr al-Bared had to flee. If anti-war activists were really so concerned about palestinian suffering as they claim, shouldn't there have been an equal (if not larger) outrage about Nahr al-Bared as about Jenin?

2007 is looking to be the bloodiest year in Iraq yet for our soldiers.

The AP wrote:2007 Is Deadliest Year for US in Iraq

By LAUREN FRAYER – 2 hours ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five more soldiers, making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for U.S. troops, according to an Associated Press count.

Five U.S. soldiers were killed Monday in two separate roadside bomb attacks, said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, director of the Multi-National Force-Iraq's communications division.

"We lost five soldiers yesterday in two unfortunate incidents, both involving IEDs," Smith told reporters in Baghdad's heavily-guarded Green Zone.
At least 852 American military personnel have died in Iraq so far this year — the highest annual toll since the war began in March 2003, according to AP figures. Some 850 troops died in 2004.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

BAGHDAD (AP) — Five American soldiers were killed in two separate roadside bomb attacks, the U.S. military said Tuesday, after Iraqi soldiers discovered 22 bodies in a mass grave northwest of the capital.
The soldiers died Monday, said Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, director of the Multi-National Force-Iraq's communications division.

"We lost five soldiers yesterday in two unfortunate incidents, both involving IEDs," Smith told reporters in Baghdad's heavily-guarded Green Zone.

The mass grave was found Saturday during a joint operation with U.S. forces in the Lake Tharthar area, the U.S. military said in a statement.
Iraqi police last month reported finding 25 bullet-riddled bodies, some decapitated, in a mass grave in Nadhum village, close to Lake Tharthar. At the time, police said it appeared the victims had died within the past three months.

But an Anbar provincial police official, Col. Jubair Rashid Naief, said Tuesday that he believed these were not the same bodies and that this was a second mass grave found in the area in less than a month.
Naief said the bodies were found in a drainage canal, and that some of the victims were wearing heavy clothes — indicating they may have been killed last winter.

After the discovery, U.S. and Iraqi forces launched an operation Sunday, including ground raids and air assaults targeting al-Qaida in the area, the U.S. statement said.

About 30 suspects were detained, it said. Two car bomb facilities and a number of weapons caches also were found, it added.
Iraqi officials are investigating the mass grave, trying to identify the bodies and notify families.

Why does George W. Bush hate America?

He loves the parts that are rich.

Grenouille, you have to remember to take into account how widespread this information is when talking about demonstrators not being active - Iraq is in everybody's face, but other smaller stuff sneaks under the radar of many people - how can someone demonstrate about a situation they have no knowledge of?

Can we at least be honest in simple statistical interpretation here?

The facts that a 12 month period has a new high, and the most recent 6 month period sampled by day or week shows a sharp decline, are not contradictory.

Given that the surge has been active for only 6 months a yearly total is not an appropriate measure of its effectiveness. Comparing daily or weekly totals from start to end over that time period is. And that shows a sharp decline.

Could this be reversed in the future? It's possible.

Does that mean the sharp decline dramatically corollated with the change in strategy and tactics is meaningless? Hardly.

Galanter, you can’t see the forest for the trees. The tactics defeat the strategic goal of a stable and democratic Iraq.

The tactic of arming all sides against each other defeats the strategic goal of a stable Iraq. The tactic of escalating a troop presence in one area so that insurgents can overtake another area defeats the overall strategic goal of a stable Iraq. Allowing the Turkish/Kurdish issue to get so bad that Turkey's relations with Iran look better and better every day defeats the strategic goal of a stable Iraq. Employing mercenaries who exist outside of any legal framework who indiscriminately murder civilians defeats the strategic goal of a stable Iraq.

The tactic of propping up a dictator for 7 years who's state harbors the person supposedly responsible for the September 11th, 2001 attacks, sending him billions of dollars intended to aid in the pursuit and capture of said person that is instead used to arm the dictator so that he could consolidate his power defeats the geo political strategic goals of a democratic Middle East and a victory in the war on terror.

Sun Tzu said that victory comes swiftly. If it does not, it is not a victory. It becomes a prolonged seige. A prolonged seige is expensive, both in people and in treasure. More Americans have now died in Iraq than in the WTC on September 11th, 2001. We spend billions of dollars every week on an occupation that was supposed to quickly pay for itself.

Our "strategy" is nothing more than damage control. Stopping one hole of the dam while others burst. The troop escalation is damage control. Damage control for the war, and damage control for covering George W. Bush's ass.

The war in Iraq has never had a strategy for winning. The war on terror has never had a strategy for winning. The tactics employeed for both do more to prolong and compound the problems than they do anything to solve them.

We have no effective allies, no credibility and soon no military. All of our geo political strategic leverage, in both the Middle East and the rest of the world, built up over years of careful statecraft, has fallen like a house of cards. A nation that in 2001 had the world behind it now stands alone. All of that goodwill, all of that potential help, vanished with the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent chaos that emerged due to lack of any real strategy for securing anything other than Iraq's oil fields.

The real strategic goals in the region are, and always have been, control of Iraq's oil reserves to benefit the oil interests that helped pay for George W. Bush's Presidency; neverending existential and external threats to justify neverending war; neverending war to fuel the military industrial complex that helped pay for George W. Bush's Presidency; neverending war as an excuse to consolidate domestic political power and a "permanent Republican majority"; pumped up "emergencies" as a way to dumb down the discourse and silence dissent; and a gutting, a raping, and a pillaging of our treasure and resources.

Galanter your position assumes that this war was justified in the first place. It was not. Your use of questionable statistics about how a recent troop escalation is supposedly turning the tide, 4 years after Bush declared victory in Iraq, is both futile and pathetic. You seem to have bought into the rhetoric and ignored the actions, or lack of action, on the part of the Administration. They have bungled a misguided war from the start and no amount of damage control on their part, nor propagandizing on yours will change that fact.

Posting this shit here and being contrarian for the sake of just being contrarian is both a stupid and useless tactic. It will not achieve your strategic goal of convincing me or most anyone here that the escalation, or "surge" is working, or that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is right or just. Overall, the Iraq invasion is the single greatest strategic disaster in our country's history.

So please shut the fuck up already.