Rift Seen in Iraq Insurgency

[Rascal]

I saw something along these lines in another report this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html

Of course they could simply be two face right now and use the arming that we are giving them against us later. Hell, they will probably do that anyway. But for the moment I'll chose to be optimistic.

[Rascal]

Here is another article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881803/site/newsweek/

Maybe things are turning around.

[The Lone Bolt]

I'm sure Bush will find some way to f-ck it up.

[Rohirrim]

Makes me wonder why the Bush cabal continues to argue that if we leave, Al Queda will build bases in Iraq from which they will attack us. Sounds to me like if we left, Al Queda in Iraq would be wiped out.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Makes me wonder why the Bush cabal continues to argue that if we leave, Al Queda will build bases in Iraq from which they will attack us. Sounds to me like if we left, Al Queda in Iraq would be wiped out.

I don't know about that. For one there would be areas where the local population couldn't band together due to their limited strength and Al Queda could thrive there. Or in areas where there exist huge factions (Baghdad for one).

[Meck77]

Interesting news especially considering the source.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Interesting news especially considering the source.

As opposed to what other sources?

[TailgateNut]

It's about time they get off their collective asses and help themselves. I do understand their position on America after they rid themselves of Al Queda. If Bush and his cabal of money grubbing warmongers had'nt gone there in the first place, they would'nt have to deal with Al Queda.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

It's about time they get off their collective asses and help themselves. I do understand their position on America after they rid themselves of Al Queda. If Bush and his cabal of money grubbing warmongers had'nt gone there in the first place, they would'nt have to deal with Al Queda.

You are right. Instead they had to worry about Saddam killing them at his leisure.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Rascal

You are right. Instead they had to worry about Saddam killing them at his leisure.

So we took the target off of their backs and put them on the backs of our soldiers. Great Plan, eh?

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

So we took the target off of their backs and put them on the backs of our soldiers. Great Plan, eh?

That wasn't the point of your comment and you know it. You implied they would be better off if we had never gone there. There might be an arguement that they might be about the same now, some would say better some would say worse, but they will be better off in the future if we pull it off. I called you on it and now you are trying to deflect it.

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Rascal

That wasn't the point of your comment and you know it. You implied they would be better off if we had never gone there. There might be an arguement that they might be about the same now, some would say better some would say worse, but they will be better off in the future if we pull it off. I called you on it and now you are trying to deflect it.

My comment wasn't a deflection, it was a reply to your comment about Saddam.

Try reading the lines, and not using your imagination!

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

My comment wasn't a deflection, it was a reply to your comment about Saddam.

Try reading the lines, and not using your imagination!

Wow. Try using some reading comprehension and realize when i mentioned sadaam it was in response to your own post specifically this part, "If Bush and his cabal of money grubbing warmongers had'nt gone there in the first place, they would'nt have to deal with Al Queda."

[Rascal]

Also an interesting read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19103676/

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

You are right. Instead they had to worry about Saddam killing them at his leisure.

So how many did Saddam kill and how many have we killed? You have the scorecard? And who killed more in less time?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rascal

You implied they would be better off if we had never gone there. There might be an arguement that they might be about the same now, some would say better some would say worse, but they will be better off in the future if we pull it off.

But at what cost to the American taxpayer?

How much $$$ has already disappeared into the economic black hole that is Iraq since the outset of the invasion/occupation? I feel sick when I think of the number of zeros at the end of that number (let alone all the things that could have been done with that money to strengthen America.)

I think there is a larger question here, and it's the same old question: Should America engage in nation building? When and why?

One of the Busheviks' many, ever-shifting rationalizations for this war was "removing an evil dictator" and "liberating the Iraqi people." However, it's quite clear that the Busheviks have no scruples about cozying up to other evil dictators and egregious human rights violators throughout the world when the interests of their corporate benefactors dictates such policy.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Rascal

I saw something along these lines in another report this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...raq/index.html

Of course they could simply be two face right now and use the arming that we are giving them against us later. Hell, they will probably do that anyway. But for the moment I'll chose to be optimistic.

we can hope. Insuregencies a lot of times can tire themselves out. Maybe this can run the course and ordinary Iraqis can step up and take control.

I don't hold out much hope for this though.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

But at what cost to the American taxpayer?

How much $$$ has already disappeared into the economic black hole that is Iraq since the outset of the invasion/occupation? I feel sick when I think of the number of zeros at the end of that number (let alone all the things that could have been done with that money to strengthen America.)

I think there is a larger question here, and it's the same old question: Should America engage in nation building? When and why?

One of the Busheviks' many, ever-shifting rationalizations for this war was "removing an evil dictator" and "liberating the Iraqi people." However, it's quite clear that the Busheviks have no scruples about cozying up to other evil dictators and egregious human rights violators throughout the world when the interests of their corporate benefactors dictates such policy.

That is a valid question, but unfortunately it is impossible to answer. The rewards, if things work out, will come later especially when things get interesting with China. Which IMO is the primary purpose of the missile shield Bush wants to put in Europe.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

That is a valid question, but unfortunately it is impossible to answer. The rewards, if things work out, will come later especially when things get interesting with China. Which IMO is the primary purpose of the missile shield Bush wants to put in Europe.

Huh? Why would that be the reason? You do know where China is located on the map?

Originally Posted by Rascal

Maybe things are turning around.

Or maybe things are the same.....

------------------------------------------------------
The State of Iraq: An Update
By JASON CAMPBELL, MICHAEL O’HANLON and AMY UNIKEWICZ
Published: June 10, 2007

WHILE the American and Iraqi troops for the so-called surge are nearly all in place, it’s far too early to judge the effect. Still, given America’s waning patience with the war and the bad circumstances that prevailed in Iraq when the surge began, optimism is hard to come by. Our latest chart of leading indicators, based on American and Iraqi government data and news reports, doesn’t brighten the picture much.

First, the good news. Overall levels of violence are down somewhat in Baghdad. Extrajudicial killings — largely reprisal assassinations carried out against Sunnis by Shiite militias — are about 50 percent below levels from the winter. In violent Anbar Province, security cooperation among sheiks, their followers, the Iraqi government and Coalition forces against Al Qaeda remains impressive.

A number of extremist militia members and Qaeda operatives have been killed and captured in the Baghdad area, with American and Iraqi forces conducting 6 to 12 raids per day. These attacks help explain the rising American death tolls of April and May, which are obviously not good news, but may offer hope of a somewhat calmer future.

Alas, bad news still dominates. Overall levels of violence remain very high by the standards of other countries suffering from civil conflicts, and also in comparison with the Iraq of 2003 through 2005. Bombings by Sunni insurgents and Qaeda terrorists remain prevalent enough that the current restraint being exercised by most Shiite militias will be difficult to sustain. Cities like Kirkuk and Mosul remain tinderboxes. The economy remains stagnant and utility performance abysmal.

And, perhaps worst of all, the Iraqi political system has failed to deliver any real progress on the core issues dividing Sunni from Shiite from Kurd, without which there will be no lasting peace.

---------------------------------------------------

3 U.S. troops dead in Iraq bridge strike
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

BAGHDAD - The suicide explosion that destroyed a vital bridge outside the Iraqi capital killed three American soldiers guarding the span over a main highway, the U.S. military said Monday, as bulldozers worked to clear the shattered concrete.

An Iraqi interpreter also was wounded in the attack Sunday on the overpass on the Iraqi capital's main north-south artery. As rescuers climbed over the debris, U.S. armored vehicles provided cover fire from their cannons after the bombing, which occurred in the area dubbed the "triangle of death" for its frequent Sunni insurgent attacks.



His division, he said, had lost 43 soldiers since the beginning of the U.S. troop surge on Feb. 14.

The deaths raised to at least 3,509 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

In other violence reported by police on Monday:

• Gunmen killed a Sunni Arab banker along with his driver and a guard in a drive-by shooting in the northern city of Mosul.

• A mortar round slammed into a house in Tal Afar, 260 miles northwest of Baghdad, killing a 52-year-old man and his 12-year-old son and wounding the mother and five other sons, a police officer said.

• A roadside bomb struck a bus in the Khan Bani Saad area northeast of Baghdad, killing two passengers and wounding two others.

• A guard for the deputy governor of Diyala province was killed and two others wounded in a drive-by shooting in Baqouba.

[Rascal]

Missiles can go either direction, this isn't NASCAR.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Rascal

Missiles can go either direction, this isn't NASCAR.

Uh, why would China send them the long way around (over Asia, then Europe and then the Atlantic ocean), this isn't a "see how long you can keep your missiles in the air before they are spotted" game.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Or maybe things are the same.....

Yep.

And, at this stage of the game, I can only shake my head in disbelief at anyone who is still trying to convince himself that Bush's only motive for going into Iraq (and for emptying the U.S. Treasury into the coffers of his defense contractor donors) was to make Iraq a better place, liberate the Iraqi people, spread democracy and freedom, etc.

[NYBronco]

It's in the best interest of our nation's security that we are in Iraq, ignore the out of control illegal imigration. They are our neighbors south o' the border searching for a better life.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by NYBronco

It's in the best interest of our nation's security that we are in Iraq, ignore the out of control illegal imigration. They are our neighbors south o' the border searching for a better life.

[bendog]

I didn't want to start yet another thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070612/...6OP2RNJwqyFz4D

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Tue Jun 12, 3:56 PM ET



WASHINGTON - A drafter of stalled Iraqi legislation to set ground rules for the country's oil policy said Tuesday "there is no sign of a compromise" that would lead to final approval by the parliament.

ADVERTISEMENT




The pessimistic assessment by Tariq Shafiq, who runs a petroleum consulting firm in London and offered his advice to the Iraqi government, conflicted with frequent forecasts of a breakthrough by Iraqi officials.

Shafiq blamed the holdup on a lack of security in Iraq, where he said "people do not know if they are going to live the next day," as well as on corruption.

Under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, "we are now in a worse situation than a year ago," he said at a news conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank attended by several American oil company officials.

Iraq is one of the world's leading oil producers. It has proven reserves of 115 billion barrels of petroleum, third in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the potential for nearly doubling that amount in an oil-thirsty world.

If approved, the new law — Shafiq helped draft the original legislation — is expected to encourage foreign oil companies to invest in Iraq and spur the country to attain its goal of doubling current production of 2.5 million barrels a day by 2010.

Iraq's oil infrastructure has been under repeated attacks from insurgents. Shiites and Kurds dominate the two major oil regions in southern and northern Iraq and are resisting national control, Shafiq said.

"A compromise must be found" to balance regional interests with the responsibility of the federal government to be the "custodian" of the country's resources, Shafiq said.

Last week, oil ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said, "We hope the ratification of this law will be achieved in no more than one month from now."

"This law is considered a major national project and achievement," he told The Associated Press.

Asked if he agreed, Shafiq said, "I wish I shared the optimism of the minister. I am not very optimistic."