Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents
    #7032383 - 06/11/07 01:50 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

The U.S. military has confirmed that it is arming Sunni insurgent factions to try to contain al-Qaida in Mesopotamia, according to a report in Monday's New York Times by veteran Iraq correspondent John Burns.

"With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past."

American officers acknowledge that it is arming some groups that are suspected to have been involved in American attacks as well as link to Al Qaeda. Some American officers maintain they are simply arming both sides of a civil war.

"With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites," reports the Times. "There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves."

But commanders maintain that the strategy has shown to be successful in driving a wedge between former Sunni Baathists and Al Qaeda, two groups who have often worked together since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

That strategy was first use in the Anbar Province of Iraq, where attacks on US troops plunged after tribal sheiks, angry with the killing of Sunni civilians at the hands of Al Qaeda, recruited and armed thousands of men to join tribal security and police forces. Now the military is spreading the "Anbar model" throughout Sunni Iraq.

Excerpts...
#

With the agreement to arm some Sunni groups, the Americans also appear to have made a tacit recognition that earlier demands for the disarming of Shiite militia groups are politically unachievable for now given the refusal of powerful Shiite political parties to shed their armed wings. In effect, the Americans seem to have concluded that as long as the Shiites maintain their militias, Shiite leaders are in a poor position to protest the arming of Sunni groups whose activities will be under close American scrutiny.

But officials of Mr. Maliki’s government have placed strict limits on the Sunni groups they are willing to countenance as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda. One leading Shiite politician, Sheik Khalik al-Atiyah, the deputy Parliament speaker, said in a recent interview that he would rule out any discussion of an amnesty for Sunni Arab insurgents, even those who commit to fighting Al Qaeda. Similarly, many American commanders oppose rewarding Sunni Arab groups who have been responsible, even tangentially, for any of the more than 29,000 American casualties in the war, including more than 3,500 deaths. Equally daunting for American commanders is the risk that Sunni groups receiving American backing could effectively double-cross the Americans, taking weapons and turning them against American and Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government forces.

Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division and leader of an American task force fighting in a wide area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers immediately south of Baghdad, said at a briefing for reporters on Sunday that no American support would be given to any Sunni group that had attacked Americans. If the Americans negotiating with Sunni groups in his area had “specific information” that the group or any of its members had killed Americans, he said, “The negotiation is going to go like this: ‘You’re under arrest, and you’re going with me.’ I’m not going to go out and negotiate with folks who have American blood on their hands.”




rawstory.com

Full story: new york times

Edited by FrenchSocialist (06/11/07 02:14 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineKinematics
coyote vision


Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 662
Loc: Colorado
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #7032824 - 06/11/07 09:19 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Didn't we do this for bin Laden and a few other groups that turned on us at a later date?

I guess we will never learn from the past.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDNKYD
Turtle!

Registered: 09/23/04
Posts: 12,326
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: Kinematics]
    #7033079 - 06/11/07 10:52 AM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kinematics said:
Didn't we do this for bin Laden and a few other groups that turned on us at a later date?

I guess we will never learn from the past.








"I would ask Kinematics to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn't really mean it."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: Kinematics]
    #7033927 - 06/11/07 03:00 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Kinematics said:
Didn't we do this for bin Laden and a few other groups that turned on us at a later date?

I guess we will never learn from the past.




No.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #7033969 - 06/11/07 03:09 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

It is risky for certain, but life is fraught with risk. Not a bad idea, though. Al Qaeda was already wearing out their welcome there and as they and other terrorist groups are the main enemy in the entire philosophy any help is good help. Destroy the foreign element, bring in the disenfranchised Sunni element to be part of the solution, and the Iraqis may be on their way to uniting against a common enemy. If they find out they can work together it will be a good thing and could be very helpful. Or, it could just give them some access for the short term to weapons that they will use poorly. Worth a shot.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTurn
Hey Its Free!


Registered: 12/14/04
Posts: 367
Loc: The fabled catbird seat
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7034032 - 06/11/07 03:30 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Hehe Nice DNKYD, looks like our military wants to up the violence in Iraq. Maybe they want the country constantly unstable so our troops can always be there.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist


Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7034126 - 06/11/07 03:55 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It is risky for certain, but life is fraught with risk. Not a bad idea, though. Al Qaeda was already wearing out their welcome there and as they and other terrorist groups are the main enemy in the entire philosophy any help is good help. Destroy the foreign element, bring in the disenfranchised Sunni element to be part of the solution, and the Iraqis may be on their way to uniting against a common enemy. If they find out they can work together it will be a good thing and could be very helpful. Or, it could just give them some access for the short term to weapons that they will use poorly. Worth a shot.




You must have absolutely no memory at all. Do you not recall the article I presented by CFR showing that we cannot win Iraq's civil war? You really need to do your homework before you dig yourself into a bigger hole.

Iraq's Civil War

I don't know what could make you think you know more about the issue then the Yale political scientist who wrote the article.

The NYTimes article confirms this assessment:

Quote:

But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans’ arming both sides in a future civil war. The United States has spent more than $15 billion in building up Iraq’s army and police force, whose manpower of 350,000 is heavily Shiite. With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.




And it should be obvious that the army is not implementing this strategy because it's realistic, but because they are desperate. Mainly because they have not been given adequate resources to control Iraq, even before the civil war erupted:

What Went Wrong In Iraq.

Maybe if you actually read and listened to the professionals you would be able to see the reality of the situation. Instead it seems like you wish to bask in the glory our men are fighting and dying for, while you busy yourself with carpentry.

Edited by FrenchSocialist (06/11/07 04:12 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #7034599 - 06/11/07 06:08 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

FrenchSocialist said:

You must have absolutely no memory at all. Do you not recall the article I presented by CFR showing that we cannot win Iraq's civil war? You really need to do your homework before you dig yourself into a bigger hole.




I do recall that you worship at the altar of CFR opinion. I do not worship there, myself. And, frankly, this doesn't seem to be a civil war issue seeing as how al Q are foreign interlopers themselves, and this seems to actually be fostering cooperation among the parties allegedly at civil war. Keep digging yourself.
Quote:




I don't know what could make you think you know more about the issue then the Yale political scientist who wrote the article.



The average slug knows more than a political scientist about prosecuting a war, especially one from Yale.
Quote:



The NYTimes article confirms this assessment:

Quote:

But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans’ arming both sides in a future civil war. The United States has spent more than $15 billion in building up Iraq’s army and police force, whose manpower of 350,000 is heavily Shiite. With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.







I think I acknowledged all of that in my post. All of it. Did you read it? I also took the liberty of bolding and italicizing something from your blessed NYTimes that seems to say your other expert from CFR is a butthole surfer. A future civil war does not speak well to the notion that there is a current one, now does it? Why are you so utterly blinkered that the only people you listen to are "critics"? They certainly have no more credibility than those who are actually doing the job, who are themselves "experts". What is wrong with you? Any naysayer is your hero, it seems. As a point of education, there is no endeavor that does not find its critics. None. We would thus, by your criteria, never leave the couch. As a devoted amateur psychologist I worry for you. This is not healthy. For children and other living things.
Quote:



And it should be obvious that the army is not implementing this strategy because it's realistic, but because they are desperate. Mainly because they have not been given adequate resources to control Iraq, even before the civil war erupted:

What Went Wrong In Iraq.




More blah blah. Honestly, I cannot credit your constant blind worship of all that is negative. This could be positive, for the reasons I expressed and which no doubt have occurred to the experts who are actually charged with being successful, as opposed to the experts who are paid to criticize from the sidelines. Sidewalk superintendents whose wrong calls have zero consequences.
Quote:



Maybe if you actually read and listened to the professionals you would be able to see the reality of the situation. Instead it seems like you wish to bask in the glory our men are fighting and dying for, while you busy yourself with carpentry.




That was quite fatuous, but nonetheless irrelevant. The professional soldiers are soldiering. The professional blowhards are ... blowing hard. You seem to put your faith in blowhards as authorities. I myself am an atheist and think that there are damn good reasons to embark on this.

As to the learn from history thing there are some people who think we armed al Qaeda to fight the Soviets. These people shouldn't be allowed out alone.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist


Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7035999 - 06/11/07 11:16 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I do recall that you worship at the altar of CFR opinion. I do not worship there, myself. And, frankly, this doesn't seem to be a civil war issue seeing as how al Q are foreign interlopers themselves, and this seems to actually be fostering cooperation among the parties allegedly at civil war. Keep digging yourself.




Well I do tend to dig for information, as I feel uncomfortable talking about matters of war based on assumption.

And while I do not worship CFR I do recognize the superseding nature of expert testimony:

Quote:

An expert (Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by the public or their peers. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
The average slug knows more than a political scientist about prosecuting a war, especially one from Yale.




Well then it shouldn't be too difficult to refute his specific arguments in an objective, professional manner:

Quote:

A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000 killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq -- easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka). Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.

A major reason for the prevalence of civil wars is that they have been hard to end. Their average duration since 1945 has been about ten years, with half lasting more than seven years. Their long duration seems to result from the way in which most of these conflicts have been fought: namely, by rebel groups using guerrilla tactics, usually operating in rural regions of postcolonial countries with weak administrative, police, and military capabilities. Civil wars like that of the United States, featuring conventional armies facing off along well-defined fronts, have been highly unusual. Far more typical have been conflicts such as those in Algeria, Colombia, Sri Lanka, and southern and western Sudan. As these cases illustrate, rural guerrilla warfare can be an extremely robust tactic, allowing relatively small numbers of rebels to gain partial control of large amounts of territory for years despite expensive and brutal military campaigns against them.
...

When they do finally end, civil wars typically conclude with a decisive military victory for one side. Of the roughly 55 civil wars fought for control of a central government (as opposed to for secession or regional autonomy) since 1955, fully 75 percent ended with a clear victory for one side. The government ultimately crushed the rebels in at least 40 percent of the 55 cases, whereas the rebels won control of the center in 35 percent. Power-sharing agreements that divide up control of a central government among the combatants have been far less common. By my reckoning, at best, 9 of the 55 cases, or about 16 percent, ended this way. Examples include El Salvador in 1992, South Africa in 1994, and Tajikistan in 1997.

...

Could Iraq in 2007 be one of the rare cases in which power sharing successfully ends a civil war? Examining earlier such cases suggests that they have two distinctive features that make power sharing feasible. First, a stable agreement is typically reached only after a period of fighting has clarified the relative military capabilities of the various sides. Each side needs to come to the conclusion that it cannot get everything it wants by violence. For example, the Dayton agreement that divided power among the parties to the Bosnian war required not only NATO intervention to get them to the table and enforce the deal but also more than three years of intense fighting, which had brought the combatants essentially to a stalemate by the summer of 1995. (Even then, the agreement would not have held, and the government would surely have collapsed, if not for a continued third-party guarantee from NATO and effective sovereign control by the Office of the High Representative created under Dayton.)

Second, a power-sharing deal tends to hold only when every side is relatively cohesive. How can one party expect that another will live up to its obligations if it has no effective control over its own members? Attempts to construct power-sharing deals to end civil wars in Burundi and Somalia, for example, have been frustrated for years by factionalism within rebel groups. Conversely, the consolidation of power by one rebel faction can sometimes enable a peace agreement -- as occurred prior to the deal that ended the first war between Khartoum and southern Sudanese rebels in 1972.

Neither of these conditions holds for Iraq. First, there are many significant (and well-armed) Sunni groups that seem to believe that without U.S. troops present, they could win back control of Baghdad and the rest of the country. And there are many Shiites, including many with guns, who believe that as the majority group they can and will maintain political domination of Iraq. Moreover, among the Shiites, Muqtada al-Sadr seems to believe that he could wrest control from his rivals if the United States left. Indeed, if the United States withdraws, violence between Shiite militias will likely escalate further. Open fighting between Shiite militias might, in turn, reaffirm the Sunni insurgents' belief that they will be able to retake power.

Second, both the Sunnis and the Shiites are highly factionalized, at the national political level and at the level of neighborhood militias and gangs. Shiite politicians are divided into at least four major parties, and one of these, Dawa (the party of Prime Minister Maliki), has historically been divided into three major factions. Sadr is constantly described in the U.S. media as the leader of the largest and most aggressive Shiite militia in Iraq, but it has never been clear if he can control what the militias who praise his name actually do. The Iraqi Sunnis are similarly divided among tribes outside of Baghdad, and the organizational anarchy of Sunni Islam seems to make groupwide coordination extremely difficult.




Quote:

zappaisgod said:Did you read it? I also took the liberty of bolding and italicizing something from your blessed NYTimes that seems to say your other expert from CFR is a butthole surfer.




fallacy of selective emphasis. The use of the term future civil war is strategically ambiguous, likely because use of the term is not at the moment politically correct, despite expert testimony indicating:

Quote:

The White House still avoids the label, but by any reasonable historical standard, the Iraqi civil war has begun. The record of past such wars suggests that Washington cannot stop this one -- and that Iraqis will be able to reach a power-sharing deal only after much more fighting, if then. The United States can help bring about a settlement eventually by balancing Iraqi factions from afar, but there is little it can do to avert bloodshed now.




In any case the term future civil war can indicate that there is presently a civil war that may intensify in the future, or that there is no civil war and one may erupt in the future. Given that there is sectarian violence throughout the majority of Iraq I would say the most reasonable interpretation is the former.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:They certainly have no more credibility than those who are actually doing the job, who are themselves "experts".




Do you not realize that we have civilian control of the military?

That being the case the officers are given a rather inflexible set of orders which they must follow no matter the probability of success.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
More blah blah.




Ah, you mean:

Quote:

Many of the original miscalculations made by the Bush administration are well known. But the early blunders have had diffuse, profound, and lasting consequences-some of which are only now becoming clear. The first and foremost of these errors concerned security: the Bush administration was never willing to commit anything like the forces necessary to ensure order in postwar Iraq. From the beginning, military experts warned Washington that the task would require, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress in February 2003, "hundreds of thousands" of troops. For the United States to deploy forces in Iraq at the same ratio to population as NATO had in Bosnia would have required half a million troops. Yet the coalition force level never reached even a third of that figure. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior civilian deputies rejected every call for a much larger commitment and made it very clear, despite their disingenuous promises to give the military "everything" it asked for, that such requests would not be welcome. No officer missed the lesson of General Shinseki, whom the Pentagon rewarded for his public candor by announcing his replacement a year early, making him a lame-duck leader long before his term expired. Officers and soldiers in Iraq were forced to keep their complaints about insufficient manpower and equipment private, even as top political officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) insisted publicly that greater military action was necessary to secure the country.

In truth, around 300,000 troops might have been enough to make Iraq largely secure after the war. But doing so would also have required different kinds of troops, with different rules of engagement. The coalition should have deployed vastly more military police and other troops trained for urban patrols, crowd control, civil reconstruction, and peace maintenance and enforcement. Tens of thousands of soldiers with sophisticated monitoring equipment should have been posted along the borders with Syria and Iran to intercept the flows of foreign terrorists, Iranian intelligence agents, money, and weapons.

But Washington failed to take such steps, for the same reasons it decided to occupy Iraq with a relatively light force: hubris and ideology. Contemptuous of the State Department's regional experts who were seen as too "soft" to remake Iraq, a small group of Pentagon officials ignored the elaborate postwar planning the State Department had overseen through its "Future of Iraq" project, which had anticipated many of the problems that emerged after the invasion. Instead of preparing for the worst, Pentagon planners assumed that Iraqis would joyously welcome U.S. and international troops as liberators. With Saddam's military and security apparatus destroyed, the thinking went, Washington could capitalize on the goodwill by handing the country over to Iraqi expatriates such as Ahmed Chalabi, who would quickly create a new democratic state. Not only would fewer U.S. troops be needed at first, but within a year, the troop levels could drop to a few tens of thousands.

Of course, these naive assumptions quickly collapsed, along with overall security, in the immediate aftermath of the war. U.S. troops stood by helplessly, outnumbered and unprepared, as much of Iraq's remaining physical, economic, and institutional infrastructure was systematically looted and sabotaged. And even once it became obvious that the looting was not a one-time breakdown of social order but an elaborately organized, armed, and financed resistance to the U.S. occupation, the Bush administration compounded its initial mistakes by stubbornly refusing to send in more troops. Administration officials repeatedly deluded themselves into believing that the defeat of the insurgency was just around the corner-just as soon as the long, hot summer of 2003 ended, or reconstruction dollars started flowing in and jobs were created, or the political transition began, or Saddam Hussein was captured, or the interim government was inaugurated. As in Vietnam, a turning point always seemed imminent, and Washington refused to grasp the depth of popular disaffection.





What Went Wrong in Iraq


Quote:

zappaisgod said:Honestly, I cannot credit your constant blind worship of all that is negative.




If you bring me expert testimony which supersedes what I have presented, by means of showing Larry Diamond's reasoning to be invalid, his empirical claims to be inaccurate, or his testimony to not be representative of general expert opinion in the field then I will change my mind.

Quote:

zappaisgod said: The professional soldiers are soldiering. The professional blowhards are ... blowing hard.




I find it hypocritical that someone so supportive of the war, yet spending his time getting wealthy of carpentry would accuse someone else of being a blowhard.


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


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Edited by FrenchSocialist (06/11/07 11:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #7038579 - 06/12/07 03:59 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

I have rarely seen such disjointed and out of focus nonsense in my life. Please, explain to me how Sunni and Shiia acting in concert to expel a foreign force, al Qaeda, is indicative of a civil war. Even the NY Times acknowledges that it has not yet happened. Sheesh, surrounded by an army of negativistic blowhards who contribute nothing except to the fantasy of global warming.

This is a positive development when Sunni and Shia put their differences aside and fight together. Any other conclusion is kneejerk negativism. Oh and keep it up with all the 2004 articles. They're really relevant now.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #7038596 - 06/12/07 04:08 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Take out the word insurgents and put in tribes and it makes more sense. I've seen articles about the US helping various Sunni tribes fight Al Qaeda. With the muslims exterminating each other, it saves us time, money and American lives. Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!!!

Muslims think they're martyrs when they die fighting, so everyone is happy except the left who want to destroy capitalism at the expense of democracy and freedom. Yes, they are that jealous of the CEOs and rich share holders.

Edited by Luddite (06/12/07 04:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist


Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7038679 - 06/12/07 04:34 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Please, explain to me how Sunni and Shiia acting in concert to expel a foreign force, al Qaeda, is indicative of a civil war.




Quote:

A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000 killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq -- easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka). Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.




BTW they aren't acting in concert against Al Qaeda. Some Sunni militia groups are.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:Even the NY Times acknowledges that it has not yet happened.




I already noted how your argument was based on misleading emphasis.


Quote:

zappaisgod said:Sheesh, surrounded by an army of negativistic blowhards who contribute nothing except to the fantasy of global warming.




Yeah, sometimes you have to look at the negative aspects of the situation if you expect to win a war.

Quote:

zappaisgod said:This is a positive development when Sunni and Shia put their differences aside and fight together. Any other conclusion is kneejerk negativism.




Learn to read:

Quote:

With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.




Quote:

American commanders say the Sunni groups they are negotiating with show few signs of wanting to work with the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. For their part, Shiite leaders are deeply suspicious of any American move to co-opt Sunni groups that are wedded to a return to Sunni political dominance.




Quote:

But officials of Mr. Maliki’s government have placed strict limits on the Sunni groups they are willing to countenance as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda. One leading Shiite politician, Sheik Khalik al-Atiyah, the deputy Parliament speaker, said in a recent interview that he would rule out any discussion of an amnesty for Sunni Arab insurgents, even those who commit to fighting Al Qaeda.




And BTW similar efforts have failed in the past:

Quote:

Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them.




But hey, that's just history. Why study it? Think positive! Cause you know positive thinking is what wins wars.


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


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Edited by FrenchSocialist (06/12/07 04:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: FrenchSocialist]
    #7038887 - 06/12/07 05:38 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

FrenchSocialist said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Please, explain to me how Sunni and Shiia acting in concert to expel a foreign force, al Qaeda, is indicative of a civil war.




Quote:

A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000 killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq -- easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka). Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.




Well?  Still no answer?

BTW they aren't acting in concert against Al Qaeda. Some Sunni militia groups are.

Shia army gives them arms, they are acting in concert.  Duh.  And considering it a failure if you can't herd ALL of the cats is stupid

 
Quote:

zappaisgod said:Even the NY Times acknowledges that it has not yet happened.




I already noted how your argument was based on misleading emphasis.

You noted.  You seem to have this notion that you noting something somehow amounts to an ordination.  It doesn't.  The NYTimes acknowledged that there was not yet a civil war.  Thank you.


 
Quote:

zappaisgod said:Sheesh, surrounded by an army of negativistic blowhards who contribute nothing except to the fantasy of global warming.




Yeah, sometimes you have to look at the negative aspects of the situation if you expect to win a war.

Of course, although I seriously doubt that you have any interest in the US winning that particular war.  Just a hunch I have about you and a great many others

Quote:

zappaisgod said:This is a positive development when Sunni and Shia put their differences aside and fight together.  Any other conclusion is kneejerk negativism.




Learn to read:

I'm going to do some more selective emphasizing in the hopes that YOU might learn to read

Quote:

With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation

Quote:

With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.




Maybe, might, could.  These are special words.  I might suddenly fly to Iceland.  I doubt it but I might.  Get it yet?  There is also a possibility that it will be helpful:shocked: 



Quote:

American commanders say the Sunni groups they are negotiating with show few signs of wanting to work with the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. For their part, Shiite leaders are deeply suspicious of any American move to co-opt Sunni groups that are wedded to a return to Sunni political dominance.




I said it was a good sign.  A start.  Not an end of trouble.  You on the other hand pronounced it a sure fire disaster.  Blowing hard.  Capisce?

Quote:

But officials of Mr. Maliki’s government have placed strict limits on the Sunni groups they are willing to countenance as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda. One leading Shiite politician, Sheik Khalik al-Atiyah, the deputy Parliament speaker, said in a recent interview that he would rule out any discussion of an amnesty for Sunni Arab insurgents, even those who commit to fighting Al Qaeda.




That will be for them to work out.  The Deputy Parliament Speaker is not the emperor.

And BTW similar efforts have failed in the past:

Quote:

Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them.




I'm sure it has.  However, it is not necessarily so, in spite of your oh so brilliant notations.  I acknowledged the risk.  You acknowledge no chance of success.  Benighted and ignorant, I think purposely so.

But hey, that's just history. Why study it? Think positive! Cause you know positive thinking is what wins wars. 




Your thinking never wins or accomplishes anything.  No matter what is tried, only surrender and retreat are in your personal life cards.  Good luck with that.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist


Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7038921 - 06/12/07 05:50 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

FrenchSocialist said:
Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Please, explain to me how Sunni and Shiia acting in concert to expel a foreign force, al Qaeda, is indicative of a civil war.




Quote:

A civil war is a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies. Everyday usage of the term "civil war" does not entail a clear threshold for how much violence is necessary to qualify a conflict as a civil war, as opposed to terrorism or low-level political strife. Political scientists sometimes use a threshold of at least 1,000 killed over the course of a conflict. Based on this arguably rather low figure, there have been around 125 civil wars since the end of World War II, and there are roughly 20 ongoing today. If that threshold is increased to an average of 1,000 people killed per year, there have still been over 90 civil wars since 1945. (It is often assumed that the prevalence of civil wars is a post-Cold War phenomenon, but in fact the number of ongoing civil wars increased steadily from 1945 to the early 1990s, before receding somewhat to late-1970s levels.) The rate of killing in Iraq -- easily more than 60,000 in the last three years -- puts the conflict in the company of many recent ones that are routinely described as civil wars (for example, those in Algeria, Colombia, Guatemala, Peru, and Sri Lanka). Indeed, even the conservative estimate of 60,000 deaths would make Iraq the ninth-deadliest civil war since 1945 in terms of annual casualties.




Well?  Still no answer?

BTW they aren't acting in concert against Al Qaeda. Some Sunni militia groups are.

Shia army gives them arms, they are acting in concert.  Duh.  And considering it a failure if you can't herd ALL of the cats is stupid

 
Quote:

zappaisgod said:Even the NY Times acknowledges that it has not yet happened.




I already noted how your argument was based on misleading emphasis.

You noted.  You seem to have this notion that you noting something somehow amounts to an ordination.  It doesn't.  The NYTimes acknowledged that there was not yet a civil war.  Thank you.


 
Quote:

zappaisgod said:Sheesh, surrounded by an army of negativistic blowhards who contribute nothing except to the fantasy of global warming.




Yeah, sometimes you have to look at the negative aspects of the situation if you expect to win a war.

Of course, although I seriously doubt that you have any interest in the US winning that particular war.  Just a hunch I have about you and a great many others

Quote:

zappaisgod said:This is a positive development when Sunni and Shia put their differences aside and fight together.  Any other conclusion is kneejerk negativism.




Learn to read:

I'm going to do some more selective emphasizing in the hopes that YOU might learn to read

Quote:

With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation

Quote:

With an American troop drawdown increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves.




Maybe, might, could.  These are special words.  I might suddenly fly to Iceland.  I doubt it but I might.  Get it yet?  There is also a possibility that it will be helpful:shocked: 



Quote:

American commanders say the Sunni groups they are negotiating with show few signs of wanting to work with the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. For their part, Shiite leaders are deeply suspicious of any American move to co-opt Sunni groups that are wedded to a return to Sunni political dominance.




I said it was a good sign.  A start.  Not an end of trouble.  You on the other hand pronounced it a sure fire disaster.  Blowing hard.  Capisce?

Quote:

But officials of Mr. Maliki’s government have placed strict limits on the Sunni groups they are willing to countenance as allies in the fight against Al Qaeda. One leading Shiite politician, Sheik Khalik al-Atiyah, the deputy Parliament speaker, said in a recent interview that he would rule out any discussion of an amnesty for Sunni Arab insurgents, even those who commit to fighting Al Qaeda.




That will be for them to work out.  The Deputy Parliament Speaker is not the emperor.

And BTW similar efforts have failed in the past:

Quote:

Americans officers acknowledge that providing weapons to breakaway rebel groups is not new in counterinsurgency warfare, and that in places where it has been tried before, including the French colonial war in Algeria, the British-led fight against insurgents in Malaya in the early 1950s, and in Vietnam, the effort often backfired, with weapons given to the rebels being turned against the forces providing them.




I'm sure it has.  However, it is not necessarily so, in spite of your oh so brilliant notations.  I acknowledged the risk.  You acknowledge no chance of success.  Benighted and ignorant, I think purposely so.

But hey, that's just history. Why study it? Think positive! Cause you know positive thinking is what wins wars. 




Your thinking never wins or accomplishes anything.  No matter what is tried, only surrender and retreat are in your personal life cards.  Good luck with that.




Given our overall tactical situation:



Combined with the fact that we only control 1/3 of the capital city:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070604/ts_nm/iraq_crackdown_dc_1

Quote:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday, almost four months into a security crackdown during which troops are dying at rates not seen for more than two years.




I'd say the chance of success is so low as to be negligible.

I mean our troops are dying in record numbers, but hey-think positive!


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


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male


Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7040089 - 06/12/07 11:03 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
It is risky for certain, but life is fraught with risk.  Not a bad idea, though.  Al Qaeda was already wearing out their welcome there and as they and other terrorist groups are the main enemy in the entire philosophy any help is good help.  Destroy the foreign element, bring in the disenfranchised Sunni element to be part of the solution, and the Iraqis may be on their way to uniting against a common enemy.  If they find out they can work together it will be a good thing and could be very helpful.  Or, it could just give them some access for the short term to weapons that they will use poorly.  Worth a shot.




How about using the DNA of Saddam Hussein to clone the perfect dictator thereby keeping a lid on the sectarian violence?

Whoops!

Those demonized dictators do serve a purpose after all eh? :smirk:


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Edited by zorbman (06/12/07 11:30 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zorbman]
    #7042723 - 06/13/07 04:09 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

I think my DNA would be best for the perfect dictator. And it's already fully realized, so there would be none of that tedious waiting period.
As much as you all think I'm evil, you would positively flourish under my dominion.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7042745 - 06/13/07 04:14 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

I'd be one hell of a dictator. :smirk:

:hitler:

Seriously, though, I sometimes think that democracy just isn't the best model to govern with. Dictatorship would definitely be the best so long as the dictator was some enlightened, wise, incorrupt guy. :smile:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinevintage_gonzo
Stranger

Registered: 04/08/06
Posts: 457
Last seen: 16 years, 27 days
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7043130 - 06/13/07 06:08 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

how about a democratically elected dictator?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: vintage_gonzo]
    #7043141 - 06/13/07 06:13 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

That sounds like one horrible idea, we can't even get them right when they are on a term of just a few years. :lol:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBanez
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/23/05
Posts: 15,181
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: Turn]
    #7043364 - 06/13/07 07:19 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Turn said:
Hehe Nice DNKYD, looks like our military wants to up the violence in Iraq. Maybe they want the country constantly unstable so our troops can always be there.




or maybe they want the closest thing to an american alley in the middle east to NOT get slaughtered WHEN a civil war breaks out when american forces withdraw before the upcoming election.

if we didnt armed the sunni's and kurd's then al-queada would take over control without a fight. atleast this puts an alley in the middle east. (idk, alley is strong but a party of similar interest)


--------------------
Banez' PF Tek For Beginners

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: Banez]
    #7045930 - 06/14/07 12:32 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Al-Queda are Sunnis...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #7045952 - 06/14/07 12:40 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

So which group are the Cloudies?

:rolleyes: :smirk:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFrenchSocialist
DarwinianLeftist


Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 883
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7046218 - 06/14/07 01:46 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
I think my DNA would be best for the perfect dictator. And it's already fully realized, so there would be none of that tedious waiting period.
As much as you all think I'm evil, you would positively flourish under my dominion.




You'd be assassinated rather quickly. Knowing you, you'd piss off someone in your upper ranks/court, or at least, say something you would perceive as rude. That would make you suspicious of them. That would in turn, make them suspicious of you....which would make you more suspicious of them (and vice versa). Sooner or later, someone would act upon such suspicions, and someone else would be dead.

What percentage of dictators get assassinated? Anyone know?


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


"Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs" -- Isaiah Berlin

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: US confirms it is arming Sunni insurgents [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7049359 - 06/15/07 12:22 PM (16 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
So which group are the Cloudies?

:rolleyes: :smirk:




:wtf:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Insurgents Target Iraqi Police; 59 Dead
( 1 2 3 4 all )
RandalFlagg 4,451 62 09/16/04 04:37 PM
by Zahid
* What's the deal with the Sunni's? downforpot 601 8 12/03/04 05:33 PM
by downforpot
* American imperialism - for RailGun headphone 1,518 4 09/06/01 01:08 AM
by MrKurtz
* Iraqi Insurgency predicted to survive for years
( 1 2 all )
RandalFlagg 2,592 26 02/12/05 02:53 PM
by infidelGOD
* 43 Attacks on Americans in Iraq Yesterday
( 1 2 all )
Zahid 2,297 24 10/30/03 04:46 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,194 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* Americans murder Iraqi civilians: protesters, farmers, kids
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Zahid 6,787 89 09/28/04 11:00 PM
by Phred
* 35 children killed by insurgents downforpot 633 1 09/30/04 05:29 PM
by Divided_Sky

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,612 topic views. 2 members, 9 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.