The Obvious Flaw

[Michael Tee]

The obvious flaw in the latest flow of "good news" by the government and their hacks is that it seems to completely ignore one obvious tactical advantage the Resistance has over the Occupation Army.  The Resistance, of course, can choose to lie low, or go to ground at any time.  The U.S. military, at an overhead of some $2 billion per week, can not afford to just sit around on its ass while the Resistance engages in underground backgammon tournaments.  Sooner or later, they will have to pack up and go.  The Resistance will always be there.  Every Iraqi knows this.  The clock is ticking, and it's running out on Amerika.  The same kids and old men who are kissing Amerikan ass today will be stabbing Amerikan backs tomorrow.  They know it and I believe even the troops know it.

[Christians4LessGvt]

the real flaw is people trying to turn back time and return to the middle ages, those people and that thought will eventually lose in iraq, afghanistan, iran, and anywhere else they try to entrench their deformed backward philosophy. the people that can wait are the one's not trying to take the world back to the middle ages because that is never going to be accomplished. women in burkas proponents are going to lose this fight.

[Michael Tee]

<<the real flaw is people trying to turn back time and return to the middle ages, those people and that thought will eventually lose in iraq, afghanistan, iran, and anywhere else they try to entrench their deformed backward philosophy. the people that can wait are the one's not trying to take the world back to the middle ages because that is never going to be accomplished. women in burkas proponents are going to lose this fight.>>

I think you are seriously confused about who is fighting in Iraq against the Amerikans.  The people who want the women in burkas are key elements in the American-backed Shi'ite government, and the "al Qaeda in Iraq" fanatics, a small portion of the overall Sunni Resistance.

The remnants of Saddamists and the Ba'ath Party (Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party,) the major portion of the Sunni Resistance, are secular and do not wish to see women in burkas.  Under Saddam's Ba'athist rule, women in Baghdad wore Western dress, including high heels, short skirts or jeans and uncovered heads.  With make-up.

Saddam and his Sunni supporters ran a modern, Westernized state where the nightclubs had bands, dance floors and plenty of alcohol.  They are not about to take the country back to the 14th Century.

[Christians4LessGvt]

i am not confused about anything, it appears you are the one confused, you made a reference about ultimate winners in conflicts and although we can surely disagree, i am quite sure the ultimate winner of these conflicts be it in iraq, sudan, afghanistan and other places will not be people that want to return the world to the middle ages, in the end, no matter who at this moment supports who when and where, the women in burkas, return to the middle ages crowd is going to lose. in a more current sense the surge is working and it is the iraqis themselves that will defeat the people you refer to as "laying low" until the coast is clear. and the coast is never going to be clear because even hillary clinton the presumed democratic nominee is on record this year as saying she foresees a remaining US military as well as political mission in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. the US will have large military bases in iraq for decades.

[Michael Tee]

<<i am not confused about anything, it appears you are the one confused,>>

You are obviously very confused about the goals of the Iraqi Resistance, since you made the absurd statement that they were trying to take Iraq back to the middle ages.  You're also very confused about the identity of the parties to the conflict for in saying that "those people" will lose in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, as if the same enemy and the same ideology were confronting you in all those places.

<< you made a reference about ultimate winners in conflicts and although we can surely disagree, i am quite sure the ultimate winner of these conflicts be it in iraq, sudan, afghanistan and other places will not be people that want to return the world to the middle ages, in the end, no matter who at this moment supports who when and where, the women in burkas, return to the middle ages crowd is going to lose. >>

As a matter of fact, I predicted in this group that the Sunni were more likely to win Iraq than the Shi'a, despite the fact that they had a much smaller population base, because they were more modern and less fanatical and religious than the Shi'a.

<<in a more current sense the surge is working and it is the iraqis themselves that will defeat the people you refer to as "laying low" until the coast is clear. and the coast is never going to be clear because even hillary clinton the presumed democratic nominee is on record this year as saying she foresees a remaining US military as well as political mission in Iraq . . .>>

So what?  If need be, they will outlast Hillary Clinton as well.  The VC were fighting for their independence from France, then Japan, then France again, then the U.S.A. and the fight went on from 1932 until 1975 and at the end of the day, the last foreigners had gone home and the Vietnamese had their country to themselves again.

<< . . . [Hillary] says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. the US will have large military bases in iraq for decades.>>

I think we can agree, that is the U.S. intention.  I think that some Iraqis have a somewhat different intention: fight the invaders.  I think that some Americans have an intention to pull out and leave the Iraqis to settle their own differences.  So there are different forces at play here, each with their own hopes and intentions.  You may be right - - the Amerikans may defeat the Iraqi Resistance forces and occupy the country or leave it as firmly in the control of a pro-Amerikan puppet regime as, say, Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia is today.  That, IMHO, would be a tragedy, not only for the people of Iraq, who will be reduced from relative prosperity to relative poverty as foreign oil companies settle on them like leeches and bloodsuckers on a sick or wounded animal and drain off the wealth of the country to line their own pockets, but a tragedy as well for the rule of international law, as it would show that all international law can be successfully (and profitably) defied and the strongest can get away with virtually anything.  That is not the outcome that I am hoping for, and not necessarily the outcome that will result.  But unfortunately, I can't say at this point that your predicted outcome is false.  I can only hope and pray that it is.

[Christians4LessGvt]

so the sunni will win because they are "less fanatical and more modern" but you also argue and imply insurgents usually win because they are more fanatical/determined and less modern thus can lay low and not expend as much resource and capital? by the way the sunni are not going to win anything and will most likely be the victims of genocide if the treasonrats accomplish their desired cut and run end game.

[Michael Tee]

<<so the sunni will win because they are "less fanatical and more modern">>

Well that's not a given, but they've got a good chance of beating the Shi'a despite numerical inferiority because they are more modern and less fanatical, sure.

<< but you also argue and imply insurgents usually win because they are more fanatical/determined and less modern >>

I don't believe I made any such statment.  Certainly the Viet Cong were more determined (I wouldn't say "fanatical") than the Americans;  they had lower-level technology than the Americans, but that wouldn't account for their victory - - they would have won faster if they had technology equal to the Americans', IMHO; and I would not say that the Viet Cong were less "modern" than the Americans, but I think maybe when you say "modern" you are thinking only of their level of technological advancement.

<<thus can lay low and not expend as much resource and capital>>

Well, I think I would have said that in a war of attrition, where they're willing to absorb greater human casualties than the Americans, they can outlast the Americans because the per diem cost of the war  will bankrupt the Americans if allowed to go on indefinitely, whereas the ongoing cost of war to a low-tech army is substantially less and the home front is used to a much lower standard of living.

<<by the way the sunni are not going to win anything >>

Well, I think they are the likeliest winners but I wouldn't bet my life on it.  Wouldn't even bet $100 on it, it's certainly not in the bag for anyone.  Right now the only big winner is IRAN.  Who woulda thunk?

<< . . . and will most likely be the victims of genocide if the treasonrats accomplish their desired cut and run end game.>>

Well, if there is a genocide, it'll be the accomplishment of the American-created Shi'ite "national" government and the CIA-created Shi'ite death squads, so I hope you'll be willing to share some of the credit.  My own thought on genocide is that it won't happen, simply because the Sunni neigbours won't let it happen.  They'd invade if it started.  Starting with Turkey.  It'd be a perfect excuse for them to roll through Iraqi Kurdistan on the way to the killing fields.  The Saudis wouldn't stand for it either.

[sirs]

<<i am not confused about anything, it appears you are the one confused,>>

You are obviously very confused about the goals of the Iraqi Resistance, since you made the absurd statement that they were trying to take Iraq back to the middle ages.  

Actually, the "obvious flaw" is 2 fold
1) that the U.S. is designated the "bad guy" in this whole debacle
2) that we entered Iraq on some dishonest platform

Starting with such a blatant false premise pretty much makes null & void any follow-up claims and conclusions regarding supposed flaws, be they obvious or not.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, the "obvious flaw" is 2 fold
1) that the U.S. is designated the "bad guy" in this whole debacle>>

Of course they're the bad guy.  They started a totally unnecessary war on a completely false pretext and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as a result.  What do you think that makes them, the good guys?

<<2) that we entered Iraq on some dishonest platform>>

Yes, you did.  Dishonest in every way. There were no WMD and even if there had been they could have been  no genuine threat to you.

<<Starting with such a blatant false premise pretty much makes null & void any follow-up claims and conclusions regarding supposed flaws, be they obvious or not.>>

The blatant false premise is that the U.S. is the good guy when they obviously are not and that the U.S. invaded Iraq for good reason, which they obviously did not.

[The_Professor]

<<the real flaw is people trying to turn back time and return to the middle ages, those people and that thought will eventually lose in iraq, afghanistan, iran, and anywhere else they try to entrench their deformed backward philosophy. the people that can wait are the one's not trying to take the world back to the middle ages because that is never going to be accomplished. women in burkas proponents are going to lose this fight.>>

I think you are seriously confused about who is fighting in Iraq against the Amerikans.  The people who want the women in burkas are key elements in the American-backed Shi'ite government, and the "al Qaeda in Iraq" fanatics, a small portion of the overall Sunni Resistance.

The remnants of Saddamists and the Ba'ath Party (Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party,) the major portion of the Sunni Resistance, are secular and do not wish to see women in burkas.  Under Saddam's Ba'athist rule, women in Baghdad wore Western dress, including high heels, short skirts or jeans and uncovered heads.  With make-up.

Saddam and his Sunni supporters ran a modern, Westernized state where the nightclubs had bands, dance floors and plenty of alcohol.  They are not about to take the country back to the 14th Century.

However, the Taliban DO require this, so let's move our troops OUT of Iraq, spank the Taliban and come home.

[Michael Tee]

Being as how the Taliban are unlikely to call the shots in Iraq whether or not the Americans leave, and being as how it's really no business of America's whether the Iraqi women run around in thongs or burkas, I have some problems with American troops staying on in Iraq for such trivial, not to say unlikely, eventualities. 

If that were really what it was all about, U.S. troops would never have gone over in the first place, let alone stayed as long as they have.  They are all too obviously over there for much more serious purposes, which have not yet been admitted by the U.S. government.

[The_Professor]

Ah, a true-blood conspiracy theorist.

Well, personally I think Canada gave up nuclear weapons because they wanted to hide behind America's skirts. Let someone else carry the load. Let someone else be on the front lines whilst they cower WAY behind, knees knocking. Now, where DID I put my Depends. THAT's my conspiracy theory.



 

[Michael Tee]

I just love the way "conspiracy theorist" is trotted out every time a reference is made to the U.S. action conducted for sleazy motives that they'll never admit.  As if no western nation had ever before occupied an oil-producing Middle Eastern nation and exploited its oil wells.  As if the very thought of such an operation was so far removed from reality that no sane person could possibly believe it was happening again.

I don't mind being described as a "conspiracy theorist" or even "conspiracy nut" when discussing the assassinations of JFK, RFK or MLK, because even though I believe they were assassinated by members of the U.S. national security apparatus, (a) the assassination would have required a very wide and tight-lipped conspiracy and (b) I readily concede the possibility that there was no conspiracy except in the overworked minds of paranoid liberals like me.  Not that I think it's LIKELY they were all assassinated by "lone nuts" acting alone, but just that that is at least one possibility.

However, the evidence surrounding the real motives for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is just too pervasive to admit of any rational doubt that it's all about oil.   "Conspiracy nut" or its more diplomatic version, "conspiracy theorist" are both way off in left field; the proper term you should be using is "realist."

[The_Professor]

lol...good one, MT. I admit I deliberately baited you, just for fun. Actually, there is much to admire in Canada, other than the biting weather of course. Too cold for us Georgians.

Remarkably, I somewhat agree with you, at least to the point that there are sometimes ulterior motives in what we do -- but then again, isn't that the case for any nation?

[sirs]

Minus a hard drive now, and currently in the process of shopping for a new tower, with new processor, HD, & Graphics, I thought I'd take a few seconds to deal with this repetative garbage

<<Actually, the "obvious flaw" is 2 fold
1) that the U.S. is designated the "bad guy" in this whole debacle>>

Of course they're the bad guy.  They started a totally unnecessary war on a completely false pretext and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as a result. 

That's 1 fatally flawed OPINION.  They had every right to act as they did, given the intel they had, and the events following 911.  And last time I checked, every war has a substantial loss of life.  It just so happens this has been one of the least costly wars, in that dept.  Shall we reference the Vietnam war?  The Korean war?  WWI OR II?

<<2) that we entered Iraq on some dishonest platform>>

Yes, you did.  Dishonest in every way. There were no WMD and even if there had been they could have been  no genuine threat to you.

That garbage was debunked long ago, and continues to be so, since A) it was believed my a vast majority that he had them. including a unanimous concensus by the NIE, (where interestingly every leftist is falling over themselves in referencing their recent release of the renewed strength of AlQeada), and B) it was never in reference of Saddam personally attacking the Continental U.S.  It was ALWAYS in reference to his WMD (referenced in A) being used by Terrorists that iraq DID have connections with, using them on the Continental U.S. 

No need to rehash this again, as everytime the challenge was presented to validate this supposed Bush lie, it's been demonstrated that the accusation itself is "dishonest in every way"