When did you last see a Bush partisan try to claim Iraq is a success?

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> we are going to give Iraq a good start but it's Their country.
like vietnam they may rollover and give up.
I hope not, Reguardless Iraq will not be as it was before
the entire region will not be like it was before.<snip>

Interesting, so even Rentonite isn't prepared to claim it's a success. Instead he's sort of weaseling away in advance. I can already see the line they're going to take:

"Oh, our mighty American forces were beating the insurgency good, look at Fallujah, until that nasty liberal media made us pull out and then those good-for-nothing Iraqis let it all go to hell. So it's not *our* fault, it's their fault."

Meanwhile the Middle East is far less stable than it was, British muslims are blowing other British citizens up on the tube and the best these clowns can come up with is a strategy for slinking away and claiming the horrible fucking mess that their policies were directly responsible for, is someone else's fault.

 

[oi2002]

...The immutable truth is that Iraq IS better than it was before.
The backward slide the Muslims have been forcing on everyone is being resisted.
Iraq will eventually be something different from what it was and hopefully that will be better.
this is progress.
all the bitching and moaning will not change that.
Saddam is gone.
we are going to give Iraq a good start but it's Their country.
like vietnam they may rollover and give up.
I hope not, Reguardless Iraq will not be as it was before
the entire region will not be like it was before...

A year ago it was a mess but I actually did think you could make the argument that even that was a big improvement on Saddam for Iraqis. The bar was pretty damn low afterall.

Now we have growing carnage on the ground and rapidly expanding Iranian influence within the government. Now a spineless DC, for what looks like petty partisan political reasons, is contemplating a large drawdown of troops next year and may effectively abandon a broken, ethnically divided and defenceless Iraq. That's not a start; that's throwing them bleeding to the piranahs.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think the Religious Policeman blogger you linked earlier puts it extremely well.

getting rid of Saddam Hussein is only worthwhile if you can guarantee that his regime will be replaced by one that is universally respected, can control the country by itself, and is not run by a bunch of loony imams; there seems to be no guarantee of that at the moment

and

The invasion of Afghanistan got rid of the Talibaan regime, which was good. However it more or less stopped in Kabul, and Osama bin Laden is still somewhere over there watching satellite TV and enjoying the scenes of devastation as they appear in Bali, Madrid, London and who knows where else. Meanwhile the US and its allies sent its huge armed forces into Iraq, which, although ruled by a psychotic with little regard for human life, was no great threat outside its own frontier, and in that respect was little different from Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan, apart from their lack of oil.

In doing so they have transformed that drab and dull country into a true Disneyland for wannabe Jihadis. The bored, unemployed and gullible youth of Saudi Arabia have been flocking across the border in search of excitement, danger and the chance to go to Paradise. The Iraqi insurgents, who are certainly not stupid, have been more than happy to allow this seemingly-endless supply of morons to kill themselves as suicide bombers, while the Iraqis themselves do the hi-grade stuff like remotely-detonating roadside bombs and firing anti-tank weapons.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by Rentonite
Happy Hiroshima DAY !!!!!

What's so happy about thousands of innocent civilians dying in a hideous manner?

 

[oi2002]

Bit of crying over spilt milk on Rand.

Analyzing current and past levels of political violence, crime rates, rule of law metrics, and public opinion polls, researchers found that nation-building operations in the two nations have fallen short of their goals. By contrast, U.S. and allied nation-building efforts have been more favorable in the recent cases of Kosovo and East Timor.
...
The implications for Iraq and Afghanistan are straightforward. Both lacked sufficient post-conflict security and justice resources, such as troops, police, and a peace treaty or formal surrender. This directly contributed to the breakdown in law and order, Jones said. Greater resources, along with a formal surrender in Iraq and a peace treaty in Afghanistan, might have helped avert the prolonged insurgency now being faced.
...
Based on their analysis of nation-building missions, researchers set rough guidelines for the successful reconstruction of security after combat — including the ratio of troop and police levels to inhabitants over time, levels of financial assistance, and security assistance timelines. For example, researchers suggest that average annual financial assistance should be roughly $250 per capita over the first two years of nation building, and that 1,000 soldiers per 100,000 inhabitants are required to provide security and stability.

That's 260,000 troops needed to secure Iraq from becoming a Jihadi sandpit. Roughly double what the brass managed to argue dreamy Rummie up to.

You'd need to double that again now the rebellion's got legs. If you exclude the re-badged Kurdish Peshmerga units the Iraqis have maybe 5,000 combat capable troops with no armor, artillery or airpower. Pushing the envelope of optimism they might have 50,000 usable troops by mid 2006. Not far off half a million short. Is it suprising that Baghdad is cosying up to Tehran with Rummie vocally preparing to dash for the helicopters? I'd be scared as hell in their shoes.

Clinton thought Kosovo would be a working state within 6 months; we are still there.

 

[spring-peeper]

Imo, when Saddam was in power, he was able to squash those who would have caused a civil war.

Although I may not like Saddam's methods, it was quite effective in maintaining some degree of stability and the country was able to progress.

Now that he is no longer there, the inevitable civil war is raging.

I suppose by removing Saddam, the US/UK alliance is allowing the country to sort out it's destiny.

 

[patjoseph]

Happy Hiroshima DAY !!!!!

Happy for who? sick scum

 

[bigfish]

... Meanwhile ... British muslims are blowing other British citizens up on the tube...

How do you know that, like?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

bigfish, feel free to imagine a disclaimer that it might actually be agents of the state, particularly aggressive jehova's witnesses or big scaly lizard-men.

I'm open to all those possibilities in theory, and even more open to the possibility that the cops have just locked up some plasuible looking but unlucky citizens in the absence of any better ideas about what to do.

Meanwhile though, it seems reasonable to me to go with the balance of probability and the strong likelihood that Iraq has acted to catalyse this.

 

[Barking_Mad]

slip sliding away.........

Bush Approval at 44%

A new Gallup Poll finds a drop in George W. Bush's job approval rating, which currently stands at 44% after being at 49% in two earlier polls this month. The current rating is the lowest of the Bush presidency. Bush's favorable rating has also hit a new low, as just 48% of Americans rate him favorably, which is the first time that percentage has dropped below 50%. Ratings of national satisfaction and the economy, on the other hand, have remained generally steady. Even before the drop in Bush's ratings, Gallup Polls were showing evidence that the public was becoming more favorable to the Democratic Party.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=17584

 

[Barking_Mad]

Best kill us all then bernie, cause we don't listen to the likes of you.

You dont listen to anyone, that's your problem you stupid twat.

 

[Barking_Mad]

From the US point of view any withdrawl of troops would appear to be suicidal. According the the below article there are only 3,000 Iraqi troops capable of fighting without US support. 3 years and 3,000 troops.......way to go.

Not enough U.S. troops to fight insurgents: senator

The United States doesn't have enough military forces in Iraq to quell the insurgency and only about 3,000 Iraqi troops are reliable in combat without significant American support, Sen. Joseph Biden said Sunday. After a week in which 32 U.S. military personnel were killed in fighting, Biden, the senior Demo-crat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the forces deployed in Iraq are insufficient to drive insurgents from their strongholds and stabilize the territory.

''We don't have enough troops,'' Biden, of Delaware, said on ''Fox News Sunday." ''We haven't had it from two years ago, a year ago, six months ago.'' Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations panel, said the roadside bombings and guerrilla attacks by insurgents are ''confounding'' the United States and Iraqi military, though training of Iraqi forces is proceeding.

.........

Among Iraq's army, ''fewer than 3,000 are able to take over totally without U.S. support,'' said Biden, who has visited Iraq five times and in the past has criticized the Defense Department for sending too few troops into the country. ''There are then another 25,000 to 30,000 that with significant U.S. support are able to do very useful things.''

 

[Rentonite]

complaining about Hiroshima? Well thats another thread.

oh and by the way I was trying to remind you of a REAL war rather than this rather small Iraqi thing......

 

[Dandred]

oh and by the way I was trying to remind you of a REAL war rather than this rather small Iraqi thing......

You mean like Vietnam?

 

[nino_savatte]

complaining about Hiroshima? Well thats another thread.

oh and by the way I was trying to remind you of a REAL war rather than this rather small Iraqi thing......

You brought the subject up, so don't moan to us that you don't like it.

Oh and btw, Baudrillard said the Gulf War did not take place.

 

[Barking_Mad]

complaining about Hiroshima? Well thats another thread.

oh and by the way I was trying to remind you of a REAL war rather than this rather small Iraqi thing......

Jesus, is that the best you can do you? Go say that to the families of the 1,800+ dead and 13,000+ injured US troops.

 

[ViolentPanda]

complaining about Hiroshima? Well thats another thread.

oh and by the way I was trying to remind you of a REAL war rather than this rather small Iraqi thing......

ALL wars are real to those that have to fight in them, Travis.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Jesus, is that the best you can do you? Go say that to the families of the 1,800+ dead and 13,000+ injured US troops.

He doesn't care, in much the same way that his ideological buddy pbman doesn't care.

Bear in mind that rentonite the racist gets off on aggravating people on this board by waving his republican hard-on at us.

He obviously doesn't realise that a 2 inch hard-on isn't threatening, it's laughable.

 

[Rentonite]

nope The south east asian conflict was a police action, not a war
vietnamese did not caryout an attack on the continental united states.
Neither did the Iraqis. once again (if you had missed it) we are there (UK and U.S.) because the alquediea are there We are at war with alquedia.
Saddam was a prig and had developed WMD's and used them.
it was believed that there where many wmds in Iraq.
this is an intolerable situation to both our countrys.
after going there and resolving that question do you think we should now give the place back to the despot? or make it a better country.?
it is obvious that the alquediea shitheads are getting more and more desperate.
this is not going to end any time soon.
they will still continue to attack both our nations
more so if we give up Iraq.

 

[spring-peeper]

complaining about Hiroshima? Well thats another thread.

oh and by the way I was trying to remind you of a REAL war rather than this rather small Iraqi thing......

OK, I give up.

What is the REAL war that you are referring to?

 

[nino_savatte]

nope The south east asian conflict was a police action, not a war
vietnamese did not caryout an attack on the continental united states.
Neither did the Iraqis. once again (if you had missed it) we are there (UK and U.S.) because the alquediea are there We are at war with alquedia.
Saddam was a prig and had developed WMD's and used them.
it was believed that there where many wmds in Iraq.
this is an intolerable situation to both our countrys.
after going there and resolving that question do you think we should now give the place back to the despot? or make it a better country.?
it is obvious that the alquediea shitheads are getting more and more desperate.
this is not going to end any time soon.
they will still continue to attack both our nations
more so if we give up Iraq.

Explain what you mean by "police action". Did California's state troopers descend on Vietnam mob-handed? You also say Saddam "developed WMDs", if that is the case where are they? Furthermore it was the US and UK goverments that supplied him with raw materials and dual use equipment. But you sort of overlooked that didn't you, Travis?

 

[sihhi]

nope The south east asian conflict was a police action, not a war
vietnamese did not caryout an attack on the continental united states.

I'm happy you at least disagree with US action in Vietnam.

People are still from it. Only just at the end of July
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/claerpath/112250715222.htm
Meanwhile Vietnam is bracing itself for more free trade.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

nope The south east asian conflict was a police action, not a war
vietnamese did not caryout an attack on the continental united states.
Neither did the Iraqis. once again (if you had missed it) we are there (UK and U.S.) because the alquediea are there We are at war with alquedia.
Saddam was a prig and had developed WMD's and used them.
it was believed that there where many wmds in Iraq.
this is an intolerable situation to both our countrys.
after going there and resolving that question do you think we should now give the place back to the despot? or make it a better country.?
it is obvious that the alquediea shitheads are getting more and more desperate.
this is not going to end any time soon.
they will still continue to attack both our nations
more so if we give up Iraq.

When i'm agreeing with nino there must be something really obvious going on. You're an idiot who can't use a dictionary.

 

[slaar]

nope The south east asian conflict was a police action, not a war
vietnamese did not caryout an attack on the continental united states.
Neither did the Iraqis. once again (if you had missed it) we are there (UK and U.S.) because the alquediea are there We are at war with alquedia.
Saddam was a prig and had developed WMD's and used them.
it was believed that there where many wmds in Iraq.
this is an intolerable situation to both our countrys.
after going there and resolving that question do you think we should now give the place back to the despot? or make it a better country.?
it is obvious that the alquediea shitheads are getting more and more desperate.
this is not going to end any time soon.
they will still continue to attack both our nations
more so if we give up Iraq.

So Alexander the Great wasn't a warrior but a policeman, because the peoples he conquered didn't attack Macedonia? What kind of a cretinous argument is that?

As for attacking Iraq because Al Qaeda are there, they detested Saddam as a secular dictator, but as for now, well yes, they very much are there in droves. Well done for that.

 

[Matt S]

>>Oh and

>>Happy Hiroshima DAY !!!!!

That's really really disturbing. You need serious help, mate...

Matt

 

[Donna Ferentes]

As for attacking Iraq because Al Qaeda are there, they detested Saddam as a secular dictator, but as for now, well yes, they very much are there in droves. Well done for that.

In fact it's hard to think of any country in the Middle East where Islamic fundamentalists had less influence, before 2003, than they did in Iraq, and hard to think of more than one where they have more influence than they do in Iraq now.

 

[bigfish]

bigfish, feel free to imagine a disclaimer that it might actually be agents of the state, particularly aggressive jehova's witnesses or big scaly lizard-men.

I'm open to all those possibilities in theory, and even more open to the possibility that the cops have just locked up some plasuible looking but unlucky citizens in the absence of any better ideas about what to do.

Meanwhile though, it seems reasonable to me to go with the balance of probability and the strong likelihood that Iraq has acted to catalyse this.

Personally, I don't believe that you are open to any possibility other than your stated preference for "British Muslims blowing other British citizens up on the tube". It seems from your posts that there is a strong likelihood that you are a myth peddling racist reactionary who is up to no good whatsoever.

 

[slaar]

You're a strange one and no mistake bigfish. Feel free to distrust everyone and everything but people who come up with anti-state propaganda, but don't expect that it won't distort your broader sense of judgement.

 

[nino_savatte]

Personally, I don't believe that you are open to any possibility other than your stated preference for "British Muslims blowing other British citizens up on the tube". It seems from your posts that there is a strong likelihood that you are a myth peddling racist reactionary who is up to no good whatsoever.

I have never seen anything that has convinced me that Bernie is a "myth peddling racist reactionary". Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Personally, I don't believe that you are open to any possibility other than your stated preference for "British Muslims blowing other British citizens up on the tube". It seems from your posts that there is a strong likelihood that you are a myth peddling racist reactionary who is up to no good whatsoever.

LOL - "myth peddling [...] reactionary" - Irony isnt your strong suit is it?