|
| Posted by: Boxman
- [337352111] Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 13:25
The other thread was getting pretty long at over 500 posts so I'm starting a new one with this nicely written article from the Journal.
Iraq and Its Costs
By JOE LIEBERMAN and LINDSEY GRAHAM
April 7, 2008; Page A13
When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.
This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.
As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."
Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.
No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.
In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.
Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.
In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.
And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."
Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.
Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.
It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.
Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.
Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.
There is no question the war in Iraq like the Cold War, World War II and every other conflict we have fought in our history costs money. But as great as the costs of this struggle have been, so too are the dividends to our national security from a successful outcome, with a functioning, representative Iraqi government and a stabilized Middle East. The costs of abandoning Iraq to our enemies, conversely, would be enormous, not only in dollars, but in human lives and in the security and freedom of our nation.
Indeed, had we followed the path proposed by antiwar groups and retreated in defeat, the war would have been lost, emboldening and empowering violent jihadists for generations to come.
The success we are now achieving also has consequences far beyond Iraq's borders in the larger, global struggle against Islamist extremism. Thanks to the surge, Iraq today is looking increasingly like Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare: an Arab country, in the heart of the Middle East, in which hundreds of thousands of Muslims both Sunni and Shiite are rising up and fighting, shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, against al Qaeda and its hateful ideology.
It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut. Mr. Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina. |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 4032378
Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 15:15
|
This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history.
OMG! No need to read past there.
|
|
| | | 2 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 15:30
|
This is, of course, coming from the man who had lead the most remarkably successful Vice Presidential campaigns in American history.
What a joke.
|
|
| | | 3 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 16:06
|
It is unfortunate that so many opponents of the surge still refuse to acknowledge the gains we have achieved in Iraq. When Gen. Petraeus testifies this week, however, the American people will have a clear choice as we weigh the future of our fight there: between the general who is leading us to victory, and the critics who spent the past year predicting defeat.
It's unfortunate that Lieberman/Graham/McCain refuse to acknowledge why the gains were made in Iraq and give an honest assessment of the current situation.
Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
So, the most important thing is to blame Iran, even though we have no proof of the depth of their involvement? Where are the truckloads of equipment seized at the Iran/Iraq border? Besides a few Iranian officers, in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, where is the proof of "an escalating proxy war"? Where is the evidence "they are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform." Why not be honest about the nationalities of the suicide bombers and foreign jihadists who we know are responsible not just for the deaths of American soldiers, but thousands of Iraqi civilians?
The truth is there are many Iranian-trained agents with weapons in Iraq, and most of them are aligned with the two parties who control the Iraqi government, known as the Badr Brigade.
Really, who is this article trying to kid? It's possibly the most dishonest piece of crap we've seen lately. How disappointing for Lieberman.
|
|
| | | 4 | Seattle Zen
ID: 29241823
Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 22:38
|
If the real one would only be as honest...
|
|
| | | 5 | walk
ID: 3731494
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 06:22
|
A little more telling about the success of the surge
Lieberman and Graham are just inaccurate. Their support of the surge really looks a lot more like a support for their decision to have a surge. The linked line of questioning from Bill Nelson to Petraeus and Crocker yesterday is a lot more revealing. What are the real measures of success in Iraq? Why is violence, partially, down? Is the surge really making the difference? Was not the aim of the surge, primarily, to promote breathing space for poli reconciliation? Have we seen real poli reconciliation? Wasn't the timeline supposed to be last Sept? Where are we now? Are we close? We are not.
|
|
| | |
| | | 7 | walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 09:54
|
This article by Dowd does not overwhelmingly play sides, and is essentially pointing out the basic questions about Iraq: How much longer? What gains have been made diplomatically? Where is the diplomatic surge? Why do Iraqi's like Iran treat so much better than the U.S., even though it is the U.S. who is spending lives and $ on rebuilding Iraq? This thing is all about saving face, IMO.
|
|
| | | 8 | Perm Dude
ID: 5031696
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 09:57
|
I dont' know which news talk show it was, but Bill Kristol was on giving his Administration-approved spin. Another gentleman was on (I think from the Post), who followed that with something along the lines of "For Bill Kristol, there is no difference between 'political analysis' and 'Administration talking points.'"
When it comes to the surge, we've clearly got a lot of Republican cheerleaders who are being held back by Petraeus, who apparently didn't get the game plan and insists on pointing out that there has been, in fact, no real progress at all, and that the surge has not given any real stabalization in Iraq, on any level.
|
|
| | | 9 | walk
ID: 181472714
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 11:16
|
I know, PD, it is funny. Petraeus was mildly pressed yesterday, and he was not rah-rahing the surge like the way many politicians like McCain and Lieberman have. It is really "politics" at this point when it comes to the pro-surge argument. I think the Dems have backed way off on the anti-Iraq war stuff, for whatever calculating reasons, but the war is no more platable than it was 8-12 months ago when Pelosi, Reid and co were really going at it.
|
|
| | | 10 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 12:21
|
The failure of the surge is that we failed to take advantage of Al-Sadr's cease-fire and his admittance that there are rogue elements of Sadrists that defy his instructions.
There are 2.5 million residents of Sadr City alone(heavily Sadrists) plus millions more in Basra, Najaf, Nasariyah and other parts of Baghdad. The Sadrist population is roughly equivalent to Sunni Arab and Kurdish populations in Iraq.
A few years ago, there were those who were saying that negotiations with Sunni terrorist insurgents was absurd. Turns out the biggest success of the surge has been an alliance with armed Sunni groups(Awakening Councils)to fight against the foreign jihadists(generically and erroneously termed Al Qaida). The question is whether this development could have been accomplished without the surge of 20,000 additional US troops. Logic would dictate that the alliance was based on a political agreement, not an increase in firepower.
From Petraeus's
opening statement:
Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again. Though a Sadr stand-down resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups, and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.
This statement is dishonest at its core. What this flare-up illustrated is that Iranian leaders turned to Iran to broker the Al-Sdar standown that resolved the situation to a degree. When Petraeus says this generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders, which Iraqi leaders is he talking about? Certainly not the Shia majority parties in the government, DAWA and Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council(formerly SCIRI), who are more allied with Iran than the Sadrists.
And the flare-up also highlighted the level of loyalty in the Iraq security forces(the Shiite segment), since 1,000 Iraqi soldiers refused to participate in the Basra operation. Petraeus failed to even mention this highlight.
Al-Sadr has demanded that the Iraqi government forces cease targeting Sadrists and Sadrist-dominated areas with military operations, and that imprisoned Sadrist eithr be tried for crimes or released, instead of being held incognito with no charges.
Al-Sadr has demanded that the Iraqi government make definitive an end to US military occupation of Iraq.
Al-Sadr has accused the Iraqi government with targeting the Sadrists in an attempt to keep them from the pols in the upcoming provincial elections, where they are expected to realize huge gains, and where they are hugely unrepresented in the present parliament(similiar to the Sunnis.
Some of these issues don't fall under Petraeus's control, but Ambassador Crocker. Still, the continued military aggression against the Sadrists, the continued accusations against Iran, and the lack of serious attempts to bring the Sadrists into the fold as another of the Iraqi partners points to a failure of progress on a major level.
Again, there are those who say you can't negotiate with radicals, as Al-Sadr is constantly labeled. If we had continued that approach with the Anbar Sunnis, then the one real success we've had recently in Iraq would have never occurred.
|
|
| | | 11 | Perm Dude
ID: 5031696
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 14:40
|
Ironically, those who say you can't negotiate with radicals are themselves calling Democrats "radical." So there you go.
Just came across this W. E. B. Du Bois quote, from his 1944 Commencement Address at Talladega College: When men begin to lie and steal, in order to make the nation to which they belong great, then comes not only disaster, but rational contradiction which in many respects is worse than disaster, because it ruins the leadership of the divine machine, the human reason, by which we chart and guide our actions.
|
|
| | | 12 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 19:04
|
Brit Patrick Cockburn has been one of the most objective, independent reporters in Iraq since the beginning of the war. His latest essay about Al-Sadr supports what I have been saying for a long time.
The al-Sadr family has an extraordinary record of resistance to Saddam Hussein, for which they paid a heavy price. One of the gravest errors in Iraq by the United States was to try to marginalize Muqtada and his movement. Had he been part of the political process from the beginning, the chances of creating a peaceful, prosperous Iraq would have been greater. A sample.
In any real accommodation between Shia and Sunni, the Sadrists must play a central role. Muqtada probably represented his constituency of millions of poor Shia better than anybody else could have done. But he never wholly controlled his own movement, and never created as well-disciplined a force as Hezbollah in Lebanon. None of his ambitions for reconciliation with the Sunni could take wing unless the Mehdi Army ceased to be identified with death squads and sectarian cleansing.
The war in Iraq has gone on longer than World War I and, while violence diminished in the second half of 2007, nothing has been resolved. The differences between Shia and Sunni, the disputes within the respective communities, and the antagonism against the U.S. occupation are all as great as ever. The only way the Sadrists and the Mehdi Army could create confidence among the Sunni that Muqtada meant what he said when he called for unity, would be for them to be taken back voluntarily into the areas in Baghdad and elsewhere from which they have been driven. But there is no sign of this happening. The disintegration of Iraq has probably gone too far for the country to exist as anything more than a loose federation.
Read the entire essay
here.
|
|
| | | 13 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, May 02, 2008, 10:57
|
War Satire Film
I look forward to seeing this flick when it comes out. I like what Cusack is doing here, and hope the movie is good.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 58452178
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:12
|
I'm guessing he is trying to take advantage of Al Sadr's current problems and fill that vacuum himself. Americans eager to leave might even see that as a plus. Sounds like reaching, I know, but that is bizzaro universe real-politik over there.
|
|
| | | 17 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Fri, May 23, 2008, 09:26
|
But unlike al-Sadr's anti-American broadsides the Iranian-born al-Sistani has displayed extreme caution with anything that could imperil the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
If I dare say that this could be something more than just "Death to America"?
The Iraqis SHOULD want us out of there so they can formally take over their new country and gov't. Since we will forever, right or wrong, be viewed as The Occupier, this guy wanting us out but not destabilizing the central gov't is a more moderate step seemingly than that of Al-Sadr.
Boldwin is correct in his bizzaro assertion though.
|
|
| | | 18 | Mattinglyinthehall
Dude
ID: 01629107
Fri, May 23, 2008, 10:01
|
Sullivan: If Maliki continues to isolate Sadr and Sistani backs him, we could have a moment when a Shiite government in Baghdad asks the US to leave. Then what will Bush do? Or McCain?
|
|
| | | 19 | walk
ID: 31454285
Wed, May 28, 2008, 06:57
|
40k with PSTD
I also read in "The Week" how thousands of soldiers have post-concussive syndrome leading to depression, suicide attempts, and other physical and emotional trauma, that is long-lasting. Some long-term costs of a war that is not discussed much in the MSM or elsewhere. So sad. So unnecessary.
|
|
| | | 20 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Wed, May 28, 2008, 13:09
|
What's sad and unnecessary is how we treat our soldiers when they get home and the (sh#tty) facilities they rely on to get their care.
|
|
| | | 21 | walk
ID: 31454285
Thu, May 29, 2008, 06:17
|
Yes, that, too. Absolutely. I have a good friend who treats vets with PSTD. It's awful what these guys are going through...and very difficult to deal with.
|
|
| | | 22 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Thu, Jun 05, 2008, 13:33
|
If Maliki continues to isolate Sadr and Sistani backs him, we could have a moment when a Shiite government in Baghdad asks the US to leave. Then what will Bush do? Or McCain?
Majority of Iraqi Parliament Rejects Long Term Security Agreement With US
This might lead people to believe that only the Shiite bloc opposes the agreement. However,
"This agreement is so meager and poor, it achieves only the American security benefits and nothing for Iraq or the Iraqi people," said parliamentarian Umar Abdul Satar, a member of the main Sunni political bloc. "I don't know how the government will persuade itself or the parliament or the people."
link
As has been the case from the very beginning of this conflict, the only real support for a long term US presence in Iraq comes from the Kurdish bloc. As has also been the case from the beginning of US involvement in Iraq, there are complications.
ANKARA, Turkey - A Turkish TV station is quoting a senior military commander as saying that Turkey and Iran have carried out coordinated strikes against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.
CNN-Turk television reports that Gen. Ilker Basbug has confirmed for the first time that the two countries share intelligence against the rebels.
He said the two countries plan to launch more coordinated operations against the rebel group in the future.
The Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, has been fighting for self-rule in southeastern Turkey since 1984 from bases in northern Iraq.
The Iranian army frequently shells villages in the mountains of northern Iraq, where it alleges that rebels from PEJAK, or the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, are based.
An examination of the Republican strategy to oppose troop withdrawls and McCain's strategy to paint Obama as "naive" concerning his position on Iraq has several major flaws.
The first flaw is equating Al-Maliki as the representative leader of Iraq. It seems to be forgotten that Maliki gained his PM position as a compromise candidate who needed the support of the Sadrist bloc. That support has now evaporated. The main Shiite parties, the Supreme Islamic Council and DAWA, have joined with the Sadrists in opposing long term US military occupation, as well as opposing Maliki's silence on the arming of the Sunni Awakening Councils.
Without a Shiite political base, Maliki is toast. Maliki is attempting two things to combat his impotence:
1. Postpone the October elections.
2. Threaten to exclude the Sadrist parties from participation in the elections.
McCain's generic position that the surge has been a huge success, and that he is committed to winning the war belies another failed strategy.
While the surge has contributed to relative passivity in Anbar, Salladin and, to a lesser extent Ninevah and Diyala provinces, it probably could have been accomplished without an increase of US troops. It's widely agreed that the main factor in the improvement was the alliance with Sunni insurgents against foreign jihadists and their Iraqi Sunni sympathizers.
But the biggest failure was not taking advantage of Al-Sadr's cease-fire last August to bring him and the Sadrists into negotiations instead of painting him as anti-American and a tool of the Iranians. As we see now, his insistence on a withdrawl of US troops has majority support within the Iraqi parliament.
The more the Sadrists are brought into the fold politically and as part of the security apparatus, the better the chances for stability, something we should have learned with our experience with the Sunni insurgency.
The other opportunity lost was our insistence on capitulation with Turkey concerning the PKK and the larger question of Turkish Kurd rights in general. As the above link erroneously states:
PKK, has been fighting for self-rule in southeastern Turkey since 1984 from bases in northern Iraq
the media has distorted the situation similar to the Sadrists. The PKK has offered to sit down with the Turkish government, not necessarily for self-rule, but for guarantees that Turkish Kurds receive the same rights as the rest of Turkish citizens. It's completely hypocritical to clandestinely support PJAK in their guerilla war against Iran, while agreeing with Turkey that the PKK is a terrorist organization. Now we see Iran and Turkey in a military cooperation that can only be considered negative to the interests of stability in the region.
Obama is correct that McCain's position mirrors Bush's, that all that counts is winning the war, and the way to win the war is militarily. This position disregards that we won the war, in a military sense, five years ago. Rather than adding more troops last year, a program of systematic withdrawl, coupled with a realization that is impossible for us to make Iraq a completly unified ally of Western interests, thus necessitating compromises that provide the best measure of successful stability, is not naive, it is essential for coherent foreign policy in the Middle East.
|
|
| | | 23 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 07:22
|
It sounds like the insurgents are pushing our boys back into the Persian Gulf. I hope we have a safe place to retreat to.
From the WSJ...
How Prime Minister Maliki Pacified Iraq
By KIMBERLY KAGAN and FREDERICK W. KAGAN
June 10, 2008; Page A17
America is very close to succeeding in Iraq. The "near-strategic defeat" of al Qaeda in Iraq described by CIA Director Michael Hayden last month in the Washington Post has been followed by the victory of the Iraqi government's security forces over illegal Shiite militias, including Iranian-backed Special Groups. The enemies of Iraq and America now cling desperately to their last bastions, while the political process builds momentum.
These tremendous gains remain fragile and could be lost to skillful enemy action, or errors in Baghdad or Washington. But where the U.S. was unequivocally losing in Iraq at the end of 2006, we are just as unequivocally winning today.
By February 2008, America and its partners accomplished a series of tasks thought to be impossible. The Sunni Arab insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq were defeated in Anbar, Diyala and Baghdad provinces, and the remaining leaders and fighters clung to their last urban outpost in Mosul. The Iraqi government passed all but one of the "benchmark" laws (the hydrocarbon law being the exception, but its purpose is now largely accomplished through the budget) and was integrating grass-roots reconciliation with central political progress. The sectarian civil war had ended.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), swelled by 100,000 new recruits in 2007, was fighting hard and skillfully throughout Iraq. The Shiite-led government was showing an increasing willingness to use its forces even against Shiite militias. The announcement that provincial elections would be held by year's end galvanized political movements across the country, focusing Iraq's leaders on the need to get more votes rather than more guns.
Three main challenges to security and political progress remained: clearing al Qaeda out of Mosul; bringing Basra under the Iraqi government's control; and eliminating the Special Groups safe havens in Sadr City. It seemed then that these tasks would require enormous effort, entail great loss of life, and take the rest of the year or more. Instead, the Iraqi government accomplished them within a few months.
- Mosul: After losing in central Iraq, remnants of al Qaeda and Baathist insurgents were driven north. These groups started to reconstitute in Mosul as the last large urban area open to them. Mosul also contained financial networks that had funded the insurgency, was a waypoint for foreign fighters infiltrating from Syria, and has ethno-sectarian fault lines that al Qaeda sought to exploit.
The Iraqi government responded by forming the Ninewah Operations Command early in 2008, concentrating forces around Mosul, and preparing for a major clearing operation. In February, the ISF cleared the neighborhoods of Palestine and Sumer, two key al Qaeda safe havens.
In the meantime, American forces conducted numerous raids against the terrorist network, netting hundreds of key individuals. The ISF launched Operation Lion's Roar on May 10. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Mosul on May 14, and the ISF began Operation Mother of Two Springs shortly thereafter.
The results have been dramatic. Enemy attacks fell from an average of 40 per day in the first week of May to between four and six per day in the following two weeks. Coalition forces have captured or killed the al-Qaeda emirs of Mosul, Southeast Mosul, Ninewah Province and much of their networks.
Mr. Maliki announced a $100 million reconstruction package for Mosul on May 17 and dispatched an envoy on May 29 to oversee the distribution of funds. Security progress was made possible in part by the enrollment of 1,000 former members of the Iraqi Army. They were part of the revision of the de-Baathification policy legislated by the Iraqi Parliament earlier in the year.
- Basra: Al Qaeda's defeat in 2007 exposed Iranian-backed Special Groups and Shiite militias as the most important sources of violence and casualties. The Maliki government had shown its willingness to target Sunni insurgents, but many feared it would not challenge Iran's proxies and the Sadrist militias within which they functioned. Basra, in particular, seemed an almost insurmountable problem following the withdrawal of British combat forces from the city. This left Iraq's second-largest city (and only port) in the hands of rival militias.
Iraqi and American commanders began planning for a gradual effort to retake the city. Mr. Maliki decided not to wait. He ordered clearing operations to begin on March 22, sent reinforcements to support those operations, and accompanied the first of those reinforcements to Basra on March 24.
Operation Knight's Charge started on March 25, as Iraqi Security Forces moved into Mahdi Army (JAM) safe havens throughout the city. Initial operations were not promising some 1,000 ISF personnel deserted or refused to fight, most of them from the newly formed 14th Iraqi Army Division. Nevertheless, the Iraqi Army seized control of the port.
Initial setbacks did not deter Mr. Maliki, who continued to send in reinforcements, including Iraqi Special Forces, Iraqi helicopters and the Quick Reaction Force of the 1st Iraqi Army Division from Anbar. Negotiations between Iraqi leaders and Iranian Brig. Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Quds Force, produced a "cease-fire" on March 30.
But operations continued, and after two weeks the ISF, with American advisers and aviation but no American combat units, launched clearing operations throughout the city on April 12. By mid-May, the ISF controlled Basra's neighborhoods, and drove JAM and Special Groups fighters out of their safe havens, pursuing them north and south of the city.
Mr. Maliki had authorized the recruitment of 2,500 local security volunteers and begun negotiating with their tribal leaders for their incorporation into the ISF. The establishment of Iraqi government control in Basra was symbolized by the recapture of state buildings and open areas that had been occupied by various Sadrist and other insurgent groups, and by the seizure of enormous weapons caches.
- Sadr City: The Special Groups had been preparing for an offensive of their own in the first months of 2008, stockpiling arms and moving trained fighters into and around the country. Mr. Maliki's move into Basra led them to begin their offensive prematurely, including the launching of heavy rocket and mortar attacks against the Green Zone from their bases in Sadr City. Iraqi Security Forces crushed these attacks in central Iraq and, with American assistance, in most of Baghdad.
The rocketing of the Green Zone, however, convinced American and Iraqi leaders to cordon off Sadr City, and to clear the two southernmost neighborhoods from which most of the rockets were coming. The government and U.S. commanders moved reinforcements toward Sadr City and began planning for a clearing operation. In the meantime, Iraqi officials began negotiating with Sadr City leaders, as U.S. forces erected a wall to separate the cleared neighborhoods from the rest of Sadr City.
On May 20, the ISF, supported by U.S. airpower and advisers, moved rapidly into the remainder of Sadr City. They received help from the local population in identifying IED locations and enemy safe houses, and destroyed enemy leadership centers. By the end of May, most of the Special Groups and hard-core Sadrist fighters had been killed, captured or driven off.
At present, al Qaeda is left with a tenuous foothold in Ninewah and a scattered presence throughout the rest of Sunni Iraq. Special Groups leaders who survived have mostly fled to Iran, while hard-core Sadrist fighters have fallen back to Maysan Province, whose capital, Amarah, has become their last urban sanctuary. All of Iraq's other major population centers are controlled by the ISF, which can now move freely throughout the country as never before.
The war is not over. Enemy groups are reforming, rearming and preparing new attacks. Al Qaeda in Iraq will conduct spectacular attacks in 2008 wherever it can. Special Groups and their JAM affiliates will probably reconstitute within a few months and launch new offensives timed to influence both the American and Iraqi elections in the fall.
And for all its progress and success, the ISF is not yet able to stand on its own. Coalition forces continue to play key support roles, maintaining stability and security in cleared but threatened areas, and serving as impartial and honest brokers between Iraqi groups working toward reconciliation.
But success is in sight. Compared with the seemingly insurmountable obstacles already overcome, the remaining challenges in Iraq are eminently solvable if we continue to pursue a determined strategy that builds on success rather than throwing our accomplishments away. No one in December 2006 could have imagined how far we would have come in 18 months. Having come this far, we must see this critical effort through to the end.
Ms. Kagan is president of the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, D.C., and author of "The Surge: A Military History," forthcoming from Encounter Books. Mr. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
|
|
| | | 24 | bibA
ID: 36540915
Tue, Jun 10, 2008, 13:18
|
Whether or not the US is winning the war in Iraq belies the question of whether or not the US should be there in the first place.
Sure, the US has the military capabilities to invade and conquer most if not all of the nations on earth. "Succeeding" in this effort may justify it in the minds of many, but much if not most of the world continues to see it as something approaching imperialism.
|
|
| | | 25 | Boxman
ID: 337352111
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 13:20
|
Iraqi military to take control of Anbar province
The U.S. military said it would transfer security responsibility for Anbar this week to the Iraqi military, a bellwether event that illustrates what Iraq and the United States describe as a profound stride in their efforts to foster stability.
Anbar is the 10th of the 18 provinces where Iraqi forces have taken charge of security control since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and the first largely Sunni Arab province to do so. The other provinces to take charge are in the Shiite south and the Kurdish north.
"We have seen a dramatic increase in security there," said Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll, Multi-National Forces spokesman, speaking to reporters in Baghdad on Sunday.
"I think that the trend now in Anbar is to move from the violent kinetic to the rebuilding process," he said.
|
|
| | | 26 | biliruben
ID: 52561217
Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 13:29
|
I sincerely hope they are successful.
This is about the bare-minimum I thought it would take, pre-conquest, for Iraqis to begin to take over for US forces. I stated we should be ready to stay for 5-10 years, and very much wish it was sold to the American people with that time-frame in mind. You need to get your citizenry to understand the depth of involvement and the sacrifices needed pre-war or you are pretty much doomed to failure. I underestimated the trillion dollars it would cost us, and the hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, however.
|
|
| | | 27 | walk
ID: 181472714
Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 12:37
|
NYT Kristof: Books not Bombs
Wow...devastating read. I'd love to see the MSM pick this up (as if).
|
|
| | | 28 | Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016
Sun, Jun 29, 2008, 11:34
|
The U.S. military said it would transfer security responsibility for Anbar this week to the Iraqi military, a bellwether event that illustrates what Iraq and the United States describe as a profound stride in their efforts to foster stability.
Did security responsibility really get transferred?
Senior Iraqi government officials said Saturday that a U.S. Special Forces counterterrorism unit conducted the raid that reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki , touching off a high-stakes diplomatic crisis between the United States and Iraq .
U.S. military officials in Baghdad had no comment for the second day in a row, an unusual position for a command that typically releases information on combat operations within 24 hours.
The raid occurred at dawn Friday in the town of Janaja near Maliki's birthplace in the southern, mostly Shiite Muslim province of Karbala . Ali Abdulhussein Razak al Maliki , who was killed in the raid, was related to the prime minister and had close ties to his personal security detail, according to authorities in Karbala .
The incident puts an added strain on U.S.-Iraqi negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement, a long-term security pact that will govern the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq . Members of the Iraqi government and security forces said the raid only deepened their reluctance to sign any agreement that did not leave Iraqis with the biggest say on when and how combat operations are conducted.
The U.S. military handed Iraqi forces control of Karbala security in October 2007 . By the end of 2007 the U.S. military had transferred nine of the country's 18 provinces to Iraqi control.
"We are afraid now of signing the long-term pact between Iraq and America because of such unjustified violations by the troops. Handing over security in provinces doesn't mean anything to the American troops," said Mohamed Hussein al Musawi , a senior Najaf-based member of the prime minister's Dawa Party . "We condemn these barbaric actions not only when they target a relative of Maliki's, but when any Iraqi is targeted in the same way."
Outrage over the mysterious operation has spread to the highest levels of the Iraqi government, which is demanding an explanation for how such a raid occurred in a province ostensibly under full Iraqi command.
"This is a Special Forces operation, an antiterrorism unit that operates almost independently so there's been no coordination with the local forces on the ground," said a high-ranking member of the Iraqi government who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue. "That's why it's so important to have a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate this relationship. As long as it's vague and open, these incidents will continue to happen."
U.S. and Iraqi officials have been in difficult negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement. Among the main sticking points are whether the U.S. military can stage combat operations without the consent of the Iraqi government and whether to grant immunity to American troops and security contractors.
Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday's operation "unacceptable" and had strained relations between the countries.
"This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make," Othman said. "This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. ... If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?"
Iraqi officials in Karbala said the operation began at dawn Friday with U.S. aircraft delivering dozens of American troops to the rural Shiite Muslim town of Janaja, which is populated mostly by members of the Maliki tribe. Authorities said the raid apparently was aimed at capturing what the military calls a "high-value target," often a reference to the leader of a militant cell.
Raed Shakir Jowdet, the Iraqi military commander of Karbala operations, told journalists Friday that the Americans had acted on faulty intelligence. He said four U.S. military helicopters and a jet fighter soared over the area that morning. About 60 U.S. ground forces then stormed the town, "terrifying the families," Jowdet said. At least one man was detained, though some Iraqi authorities said more were taken into custody.
|
|
| | | 29 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Sat, Jul 05, 2008, 12:39
|
How Chuck Schumer is anything other than an embarassment to the Democratic Party is beyond me.
From the WSJ.
Iraq's Oil Surge
July 5, 2008; Page A10
Here's a thought experiment: Assume that Iraq's democratic government declared it was nationalizing its oil industry, a la Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, while excluding American companies from the country. How do you think U.S. politicians would react? With angry cries of "ingratitude" and "this is what Americans died for"?
Of course they would, led no doubt by that critic for all reasons, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. So it is passing strange that Mr. Schumer and other Senators are now assailing Iraq precisely because it is opening up to foreign oil companies, especially to U.S. majors like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. For some American pols, everything that happens in Iraq is bad news, especially when it's good news for the U.S.
Iraq announced this week that it is inviting global competition to develop its major oil reserves, with 35 oil companies invited to bid. By tapping outside capital and expertise, Iraq hopes to increase production by 60%, providing a much-needed boost to its own coffers and the world's tight oil supply.
This is welcome news. With elections looming later this year and next, the temptation for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government must have been to play the nationalist card the way that Mr. Schumer did against Dubai Ports World's proposed U.S. investment in 2006 (see, for instance, "Ports of Gall"). Many Iraqis remain suspicious of outside oil companies the legacy of a colonial past in which Iraq felt exploited for its oil.
Instead, Iraq chose competitive bidding that will bring in the best expertise to exploit its national resource. Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani is predicting that, with outside help, Iraq could become the second or third largest oil-producing country in the world. Today it produces about 2.5 million barrels a day, compared to 11 million for the world-leading Saudis. Foreign companies will be required to have an Iraqi partner, and to hire Iraqis, while most oil revenues will still flow to the Iraqi people.
What seems to irk Mr. Schumer and running mates John Kerry and Missouri's Claire McCaskill is Iraq's decision to sign shorter-term, no-bid service contracts with Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Total and Chevron. Most of these firms had extensive experience in Iraq prior to Saddam Hussein's nationalization, and were chosen because their knowledge will help Iraq boost near-term production. The contracts will run no more than two years, and all five firms have spent the past three years providing training, analysis and advice to Iraq free of charge.
The Democrats nonetheless stomped their feet in a letter last week to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. They demanded that she intervene to stop the Iraqis "from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a [national oil law] is in effect in Iraq." Their complaint is that a hydrocarbon law is one of the Bush Administration's "benchmarks for reconciliation" in Iraq, and that these oil contracts would only "further deepen political tension in Iraq and put our service members in even greater danger." They also griped that the five firms would get an "insider's advantage" to later oil bidding.
Also piling on is House baron Henry Waxman, who is upset with a separate contract that the Kurdistan Regional Government has signed with Texas's Hunt Oil. Mr. Waxman thinks the Bush Administration didn't do enough to stop the deal. Then again, this is old news, as the contract was signed last year. And while the Baghdad central government wasn't pleased the Kurds had moved on a contract without national approval, the deal hasn't impeded Iraq's broader progress.
We doubt French politicians are objecting to Total's contract, but American Democrats are so blinkered about Iraq that they now object even to U.S. companies getting business on the merits. The hydrocarbon law would help to clarify revenue-sharing between Baghdad and Iraq's outlying provinces. But even without that law, oil revenues are already flowing throughout the country, including to Sunni-majority areas.
The faster and more efficiently the oil deposits are developed, the more revenue there will be to distribute. And the faster Iraq will be able to rebuild on its own which is what Democrats say they want. Meanwhile, by inviting foreign partners, Iraq is avoiding the trap of nationalization that has harmed so many countries. It concentrates political power, undermining democracy. National oil companies also tend to underinvest in technology, letting harder-to-exploit oil become a wasting asset.
What the U.S. should promote in Iraq is some kind of oil trust, or stock or revenue dispersal, that would give individual Iraqis a share of their oil wealth. This would be both a tool to build national unity and to prevent any one political group from dominating Iraq's main revenue source. If Mr. Schumer wants to help on that score, he might do some good.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 16633611
Sun, Jul 06, 2008, 12:41
|
Actually, there was no competitive bidding on Western oil contracts at all. That's the point the Democrats are making--not only were those often no-bid contracts, but Iraq appears to have been directed to those companies.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.
Those particular companies have a strong inside edge on all future open bidding contracts now, and they got their positions through the granting of no-bid contracts in June.
Democrats are, of course, merely asking the Administration to hold itself to the benchmarks they themselves wrote, set, and said they would hold to. Now, Administration apologists are taking the Democrats to task for saying that Bush should keep his word and make benchmarks meaningful. The gall!
Meanwhile, some encouraging news from Iraq.
|
|
| | |
| | | 32 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923
Tue, Jul 08, 2008, 21:05
|
and while debates over contracts and funding for civilian contractors rages ever onward, so too does the true cost of war;
Famous Pfc Medic dies of apparent overdose
|
|
| | |
| | | 34 | WiddleAvi
ID: 323531619
Thu, Jul 17, 2008, 08:17
|
from the link the actual statement from the recording of his remarks that they listened to, was, "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation - ok he said evacuation and not withdrawal.
|
|
| | | 35 | Wilmer McLean
ID: 466171717
Fri, Jul 18, 2008, 03:59
|
The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal". to
The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
|
|
| | | 36 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 21:19
|
OK, this is fvcked up.
It will be left to the next president to send a significant number of additional troops to Afghanistan, the Pentagon's spokesman said Wednesday.
U.S. commanders are asking the Pentagon for up to 10,000 more troops for Afghanistan.
The request was a subject of discussion when President Bush met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon on Wednesday.
But getting more troops to the increasingly violent battle zone is unlikely to happen before Bush leaves office in January, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
"This government is going to work to provide additional forces for Afghanistan next year. How many, whether it's the three additional brigades that the commanders want, I think is a question, frankly, for the next administration," Morrell said at a news conference.
There won't be enough troops to send to Afghanistan any time soon because of commitments in Iraq, which is the priority for the Pentagon.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs has said time and time again Iraq is a mission we must do. Afghanistan is a mission we do as we can," Morrell said.
Now I know I'm right. We're not still in Afghanistan because we want Bin Laden or anyone really associated with him. It's for the poppy fields, pipelines and an eastern front for Iran.
|
|
| | | 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 146272320
Wed, Jul 23, 2008, 21:29
|
Holy crap. Good find, Box.
I'm truly speechless about this. Whoever the next president is will have to re-focus our military strategy from the top down.
|
|
| | | 38 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 07:26
|
link
I normally don't get involved with the self-loathing victimization movement, but I can't help but think we're somewhat to blame for this somehow. I think some measure of solidarity with the Iraqis that bleed and die in the same streets as our soldiers is needed. I don't know if that means we take a pass on Olympics or really what we can do, but we should do something. Even a token measure like having our athletes wear an Iraqi flag on their uniform along with ours.
My understanding is that these sports are important to Iraqis and aren't trivial (let's be honest) like they are in the US. It would've been a great morale booster and a source of national pride for a country that could really use it.
|
|
| | | 39 | walk
ID: 181472714
Fri, Jul 25, 2008, 12:23
|
Good one, #36 and #38 Box. Eeeesh on Afghanistan. "Next president"...? Iraq is priority?
And the olympic thing for the atheletes in Iraq is a shame.
|
|
| | | 40 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Tue, Jul 29, 2008, 18:04
|
OK, good.
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (AP) -- The International Olympic Committee ruled Tuesday that Iraq could participate in the Beijing games, reversing itself after Baghdad pledged to ensure the independence of its national Olympics panel.
The decision followed last-minute talks between Iraqi officials and the IOC ahead of Wednesday's deadline to submit competitors' names for track and field events. The Olympics begin Aug. 8.
|
|
| | |
| | | 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 4574767
Wed, Aug 06, 2008, 08:50
|
We decided not to make them pay for our work on their behalf so that they would make profits sooner from their oil, and (presumably) start paying for their own reconstruction.
I don't believe that they yet have an oil revenue sharing plan in place--one of those pesky "benchmarks" that Bush sets in stone, then grinds away when they aren't met.
|
|
| | | 43 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Fri, Sep 05, 2008, 13:32
|
125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer ...... Total Is About Double The Death Toll In Iraq
Looks like they need a surge in Chicago.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | 47 | walk
ID: 181472714
Mon, Dec 15, 2008, 12:50
|
NYT: Extensive Reactions to Shoe Throwing Incident
This is quite a story. Apparently, throwing or hitting someone with a shoe is a symbolic insult of a low kind. So, the NYT got quotes from many individuals, from many parts of Iraq, about whether it was the right thing to do or not. Many said no, many said yes, and many are throwing shoes at Americans in Iraq now.
I like the cop who said Muntader, the shoe-throwing journalist, ought to be a prime minister.
|
|
| | | 48 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Dec 15, 2008, 14:18
|
I never heard about Iraqi journalists throwing shoes at Sadaam. They must have liked him more.
|
|
| | | 49 | Perm Dude
ID: 2611451513
Mon, Dec 15, 2008, 16:46
|
Ah, the freedom to throw shoes that Bush has brought to that country!
|
|
| | | 50 | Myboyjack
Dude
ID: 014826271
Mon, Dec 15, 2008, 17:12
|
Glenn Reynolds says it was a set-up: "Thats because the whole thing was staged. Its another sneaky Bush ploy in 2001, the heroes of the Arab world were men who crashed planes into buildings. Now, men who throw shoes. All part of the plan . . . ."
"
|
|
| | | 51 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 00:29
|
Now, men who throw shoes. All part of the plan . . . ."
"
So MBJ does this mean he uses it as an excuse to invade Iraq again?
One of the women in the Kurdish region who was interviewed for the Times article actually thought an American attack was imminent because of the shoe toss.
PD Ah, the freedom to throw shoes that Bush has brought to that country!
Are you free to throw a shoe now? The guy is still in jail.
|
|
| | | 52 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 01:27
|
And he was kicked and beaten mercilessly.
We've progressed so far in 6 years.
|
|
| | | 53 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 05:20
|
Again PD PD Ah, the freedom to throw shoes that Bush has brought to that country!
"An Iraqi government official says the journalist who threw his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush has been handed over to the Iraqi military command in Baghdad.
The official says Muntadhar al-Zeidi has been turned over to the prime minister's security guards to face further investigation by the military agency in charge of enforcing law in Baghdad. "
|
|
| | | 54 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 11:19
|
Oh and this PD...
He may be a hero to millions of Iraqis but the shoe man has had to spend a second night in detention, during which he nursed a broken arm and ribs as well as cuts to his face, according to his brother.
|
|
| | | 55 | Seattle Zen
ID: 911101610
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 11:27
|
Got back late last night from a huge rally in Portland where we chanted "Bush is a dog" while waving our shoes in the air. Mind you, we certainly had shoes on our feet as it was 17 degrees outside, everyone brought a second pair.
Iraqis certainly liked Saddam more than Bush, that goes without saying. The Mustache was an Iraqi, the Smirk is an occupier. Even Baldwin would like President Obama more than the head of an American Vichy government (at least I hope).
|
|
| | | 56 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 12:49
|
Ah, the freedom to throw shoes that Bush has brought to that country! - PD
Exactly what Bush should have said. "I have delivered you from a tyrant who would drill holes in the skulls of a whole tribe if one member so much as dreamed of throwing a shoe at him." And a question for every democrat who spent months foaming at the mouth over Abu Graib, do you actually believe that reporter is going to be tortured?
|
|
| | | 57 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 13:07
|
do you actually believe that reporter is going to be tortured?
I'm not a Democrat but I guess you missed the earlier post...
has had to spend a second night in detention, during which he nursed a broken arm and ribs as well as cuts to his face
|
|
| | | 58 | walk
ID: 181472714
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 16:15
|
The shoe thrower faces 2 to 7 years in prison for "insulting a foreign president." Chances are, he would have been killed by torture under Saddam, or no such press conference would have been allowed. Still, I think we see that on the one hand, Saddam was not permissive, but on the other hand, we royally fcuked up this invasion and occupation, reconstruction and civilization.
|
|
| | | 59 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 16:19
|
Nerve
You have some reason to believe any of that was inflicted later than the initial reaction of the crowd?
Walk
That is just your wishful thinking. Well actually you were hoping for a Viet Nam style quagmire but you can pretend.
|
|
| | | 60 | walk
ID: 139332920
Tue, Dec 16, 2008, 20:41
|
You don't know what I think baldwin, so cut it out, dick.
|
|
| | |
| | | 62 | Boxman
ID: 571114225
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 09:40
|
You don't know what I think baldwin, so cut it out, dick.
Subject: Dealing with Abusive Messages
Posted by: Guru - [330592710] Sun, Feb 20, 16:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occasionally, an immature user will bombard the forum with inappropriate messages. Usually, moderators are around and quickly clean up the situation, but sometimes this will happen while the board is temporarily unattended. If this happens, please heed the following advice:
(1) Please do NOT respond to any inappropriate messages. Any harsh responses only serve to encourage this behavior. If we show a group resolve to totally ignore these intrusions, we will thwart the craving for attention. Thus, no matter how much you want to respond to abusive messages - PLEASE DON'T. (Consider this a form of "shunning".)
(2) If inappropriate posts are not being addressed, send me an email. I spend a lot of time online, but (believe it or not), not all of it is at this forum.
(3) Users who post profane or disruptive messages will be blocked from the ability to post new messages. If you engage an abuser in a profane exchange, you risk losing your privileges as well.
As we all know, the world is full of jerks who crave attention and who don't know how to conduct themselves in public. Although the overall quality of the messages at this forum is usually quite high, occasional unfortunate episodes have occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. Be assured that they will be dealt with as quickly as is possible. But please let me (and the moderators) handle these situations.
Be strong. Ignore them.
|
|
| | | 63 | Mith
ID: 2894309
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 10:09
|
LOL. Is it me or is someone allowing his feeeeeeelings to get the better of him?
I've presented Guru's abusive messages post in response to Baldwin's ad hominem in the past.
I'll offer the same response that he always did - if you can't thicken up your skin then you don't belong here.
|
|
| | | 64 | Perm Dude
ID: 151121178
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 10:12
|
I think Boxman might freak out if he found out the people who have mod powers here...
|
|
| | | 65 | Baldwin
ID: 1211491020
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 10:33
|
Yeah, I can deal with Walk. Tree is just over the edge.
Walk, I do so know what you think. You and every other lib on this board was just sure Afganistan and Iraq were totally impossible singly let alone both in one term. You'd still be pretending it was a disaster and a quagmire if the landscape was sprouting lollipops and the population had all converted to christianity.
|
|
| | | 66 | Perm Dude
ID: 151121178
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 10:38
|
Luckily we don't have to pretend--it is a mess, and no wishful thinking on your part will make it the success you want it to be.
|
|
| | | 67 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 11:12
|
The last half of the last sentence of 65 is very telling, IMO.
|
|
| | | 68 | nerveclinic
ID: 26107108
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 11:12
|
You have some reason to believe any of that was inflicted later than the initial reaction of the crowd?
Of course not, it's perfectly logical that if you throw a shoe at someone you will wind up with a broken arm and ribs in the panicked chaos that follows.
|
|
| | | 69 | Tree
ID: 3711581711
Wed, Dec 17, 2008, 13:18
|
Yeah, I can deal with Walk. Tree is just over the edge.
hey jerk, i didn't say one word in this thread, so back off. but, now that you called me out...
You and every other lib on this board was just sure Afganistan and Iraq were totally impossible singly let alone both in one term.
never mind the fact the english in the above statement is so poor i'm not even really sure what you're trying say, it seems like you're alluding to the fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are hunky-dory, which, is about as clueless as it can be.
yea, things aren't as terrible now as they were, because, ya know, only a dozen people died and 50 were wounded in a double bombing. being that they're muslims and all, really, it's no great loss.
You'd still be pretending it was a disaster and a quagmire if the landscape was sprouting lollipops and the population had all converted to christianity.
f*ck yea that would be a disaster, at least if it's your brand of christianity. why on earth is a whole population converting to christianity a success?????
where i leave, i know tons of people of tons of ethnicities and religions. lots of muslims out here in Queens. some of them are even my friends, and NONE of them come even close to echoing the hate that comes out of your mouth.
|
|
|
|