Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawal?

[libertarian_knight]

Does this count as a scientifically valid poll? I mean why waste a poll like this with garbage language?

would the poll be valid if worded
1) Should the US murder babies in Iraq for decades to come
2) Should the US do the right thing and leave soon

what crap all around

 

[Navy Pride]

M14 SHOOTER I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims that half of the insurgents we're fighting are not Iraqis.

Terrorists we are fighting are remnants from Saddam's bathist regime and from Syria and other countries bordering Iraq......I thought everyone knew that...............The remnants from the Saddam regime are Sunnis who are so desperate they are killing their brother Sunnis now.........

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

M14 SHOOTER I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims that half of the insurgents we're fighting are not Iraqis.

I think he said more than half.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

M14 SHOOTER I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims that half of the insurgents we're fighting are not Iraqis.

Waiting for Godot!

 

[scottyz]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

IIRC Allawi stated quite a while ago that 70% of the insurgency was Iraqi.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 SHOOTER I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims that half of the insurgents we're fighting are not Iraqis.

Oh no!! Not that!!!!
Clearly, you're FAR too important to have been overlooked, say nothing of being kept waiting!!

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

IIRC Allawi stated quite a while ago that 70% of the insurgency was Iraqi.

How does he know? and a link would help............Never mind:roll:

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

How does he know? and a link would help............Never mind:roll:

Navy, Navy, Navy...don't you know by now that people in this community often provide quality links to prove their point? It would be a good lesson for you to learn since the links that you provide almost always are from obscure blog site that is decidedly bias.

Now, how about M14 SHOOTER's claim of "more than 50%"?

So you want to see some evidence that the vast, vast majority of insurgents are Iraqi? After you read this article from The Washington Post on 11-17-05 will you again allow your PRIDE to prevent you from admitting the truth? Let's see what The Post has to say:

When the air and ground operation wound down in mid-September, nearly 200 insurgents had been killed and close to 1,000 detained, the military said at the time. But interrogations and other analyses carried out in recent weeks showed that none of those captured was from outside Iraq. According to McMaster's staff, the 3rd Armored Cavalry last detained a foreign fighter in June.

See Navy, were you able to comprehend this portion of the article? There's a lot more in the story, like this:

The relative importance of the foreign component of Iraq's two-year-old insurgency, estimated at between 4 and 10 percent of all guerrillas, has been a matter of growing debate in military and intelligence circles, U.S. and Iraqi officials and American commanders said. Top U.S. military officials here have long emphasized the influence of groups such as al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent network led by a Jordanian, Abu Musab Zarqawi. But analysts say the focus on foreign elements is also an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the insurgency in the eyes of Iraqis, by portraying it as terrorism foisted on the country by outsiders.

That's 4% to 10% of the insurgents. That means between 90% and 96% of the insurgeents are IRAQI! Understand? Clear? Now why would Republicans, especially in this forum write stuff like 50% or more of the insurgents are not Iraqi? The Post story explains:

"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.

"It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders."

Navy, please do not denigrate yourself any further by writing that the Washington Post is biased, it's a lame thing to do and only makes you look silly.

To reinforce the point the story later says:

In much of the country, including the north and center, commanders say, the insurgency is led and populated almost entirely by Iraqis, many of them former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, who do not work closely with Zarqawi's group.

You can read the entire story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

'Nuff said?

 

[Hoot]

I'm glad you posted this 26X World Champs. I, too, have read that as much as 4/5's of the insurgents are native Iraqi's, who simply want ALL foreign troops off Iraqi soil.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

I'm glad you posted this 26X World Champs. I, too, have read that as much as 4/5's of the insurgents are native Iraqi's, who simply want ALL foreign troops off Iraqi soil.

You're very welcome! I'm guessing that our Republican opponents in this community will ignore this Post story and act as if 50% of the insurgents are foreign.

It serves Bush's agenda to make the outside influencers seem large since that is an excuse to expand this war beyond Iraq & to try to grab onto any creditability that might remain regarding the bogus reasons for invading Iraq.

Now that they're entire raisin d'etre for starting the war has been debunked the need to associate terrorists with the insurgents is magnified to justify their failed policies.

Its pretty obvious don't you think?

 

[Hoot]

Its pretty obvious don't you think?

Well, yes, I think. I'm not too sure about some of the others in these forums? LOL

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

Well, yes, I think. I'm not too sure about some of the others in these forums? LOL

Me thinks I smell a "lefty" label being thrown at you or I in upcoming posts!

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

[FinnMacCool]

Oh no!! Not that!!!!
Clearly, you're FAR too important to have been overlooked, say nothing of being kept waiting!!

Yeah just as I thought. You don't have any. Thats because the Insurgency IS mostly Sunni Iraqis.

Also I think Simon asked for a source also.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Paul Krugman has a beautiful article on this subject in the Times.

Mr. Bush never asked the nation for the sacrifices - higher taxes, a bigger military and, possibly, a revived draft - that might have made a long-term commitment to Iraq possible. Instead, the war has been fought on borrowed money and borrowed time. And time is running out. With some military units on their third tour of duty in Iraq, the superb volunteer army that Mr. Bush inherited is in increasing danger of facing a collapse in quality and morale similar to the collapse of the officer corps in the early 1970's.

So the question isn't whether things will be ugly after American forces leave Iraq. They probably will. The question, instead, is whether it makes sense to keep the war going for another year or two, which is all the time we realistically have.

Pessimists think that Iraq will fall into chaos whenever we leave. If so, we're better off leaving sooner rather than later. As a Marine officer quoted by James Fallows in the current Atlantic Monthly puts it, "We can lose in Iraq and destroy our Army, or we can just lose."

http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/opinion/21krugman.html

 

[scottyz]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

How does he know? and a link would help............Never mind:roll:

There isn't really much point in posting a link for you, because I know you wont believe the information if it contradicts what you've been saying.

About 30,000 fighters are believed to be involved in the insurgency, approximately 90 percent of them Sunni Arab Iraqis motivated by fear of Shiite domination or anger over lost power, said the report by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169945,00.html

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

You're very welcome! I'm guessing that our Republican opponents in this community will ignore this Post story and act as if 50% of the insurgents are foreign.

It serves Bush's agenda to make the outside influencers seem large since that is an excuse to expand this war beyond Iraq & to try to grab onto any creditability that might remain regarding the bogus reasons for invading Iraq.

Now that they're entire raisin d'etre for starting the war has been debunked the need to associate terrorists with the insurgents is magnified to justify their failed policies.

Its pretty obvious don't you think?

I've never claimed that the majority of the fighters are foreign born. The vast majority are angry iraqis, being led by the foreigners.

However, the ones blowing themselves up, for the most part, are the foreign born.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

I've never claimed that the majority of the fighters are foreign born. The vast majority are angry iraqis, being led by the foreigners.

However, the ones blowing themselves up, for the most part, are the foreign born.

You didn't but others in this thread, i.e. M14 & Navy did claim that more than 50% or more than 30% of the insurgents were not Iraqis.

As previously noted one of the few ways left to terrorize Americans into believing their war hype is for Bushies to make the claim re foreigners in Iraq to make this war more "necessary."

It's not working....just ask around....

 

[Navy Pride]

Paul Krugman has a beautiful article on this subject in the Times.



http://select.nytimes.com/2005/11/21/opinion/21krugman.html

Paul Krugmman and the NY Times huh........Why not just Cidny Sheehan and moveon.org.......They have the same creditability.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Are dems in the Senate giving aid to the enemy by asking for a date for withdrawa

You didn't but others in this thread, i.e. M14 & Navy did claim that more than 50% or more than 30% of the insurgents were not Iraqis.

As previously noted one of the few ways left to terrorize Americans into believing their war hype is for Bushies to make the claim re foreigners in Iraq to make this war more "necessary."

It's not working....just ask around....

I personally think no one knows the actual breakdown........

 

[MSgt]

There is absolutely no way to know the percentages of something like this. One could throw numbers around and attempt to get close, but they would still be wrong.

There is much more success inside Iraq than people are aware of and we are a lot closer to an end than people think. With every raid, the U.S. has destroyed every location where Al-Queda has attempted to regroup. With every election and vote, the Iraqi people have forced Al-Queda to be aware that their brand of terror will not have the affect that it was intended to be. Actually, quite the opposite has occurred.

Al-Queda has taken a beating all over the world (As far as the Phillipines). Throughout the 90's leading up to 9/11, their attacks were primarily on miltary targets. We lost embassies, part of a ship, sailors, soldiers on a peace keeping mission, Airmen in barracks' and so on. Since they have finally gotten our attention, they have been defeated on every front and in everyway. They are completely fractured and splintered. They have desperately resorted to slaughtering fellow Muslims inside Iraq, Indonesia, and Jordan. The Muslims of the Middle East are waking up to their "martyrs." They are not seen as the heroes they were once seen as - at least not in Iraq, Jordan, and Indonesia. The extremist masters have sent their "martyrs" to a suicidal death inside the insurgency and their funds have been squandered and wasted and frozen. There isn't one Islamic government on earth that will harbor this organization and many other organizations have dissipated into the crowds or have been slaughtered off by American military might in more than a few countries.

The insurgency into Iraq has been beaten, however not gone. What remains, largely, is the fractured local Sunni population that has shown descent towards this new government - understandable given both the fact that they had enjoyed special privileges under Saddam, and those who are now denied those privileges are making life difficult for everybody.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_31_kerryblog_archive.html
"Lieberman responded by teeing off on Kerry, who during his recent campaign announcement tour said he voted in the Senate on the Iraqi resolution just as a threat to Saddam Hussein - not to go to war."

This is called "waffling" by the most charitable definition. He's a US Senator, not a city alderman. He voted to authorize the use of force, period.

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_kerryblog_archive.html
"You have to get the multi-international force. You have to get sufficient troops. You've got to get the agreement of other countries to do this," he said. "Once you've done that then I think it's possible to sit down and figure out what the date is.

"Obviously, I want it to be as soon as possible, but it's not a month. It's clearly months. It might even be a year, but it can be done with far less loss of life and confrontation," he said.

That was a year from October, 2003, before, I believe, the Iraqis even had their first election. Just because Kerry doesn't use the words "cut and run" doesn't mean it's not what he's thinking. Besides, the majority of Democrats favored then, and favor now, cutting and running. Look at the support the Screaming Lunatic, Dean, gathered for his Surrender Monkey stance.

Kerry States Unequivocally that Iraq is Working On WMD's. Why isn't he being branded a liar by the people now calling Bush a liar?

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_kerryblog_archive.html

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.
According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.

But the weaseling begins quickly:

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_20_kerryblog_archive.html

Last fall, Kerry voted for the Senate resolution granting Bush the right to attack Iraq with or without the United Nations. Kerry has recently said he and all Americans were "misled" by Bush, that the president made his argument for war based on flawed intelligence.

However, I will retract my statement that Kerry was a pure cutter-and-runner.

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_13_kerryblog_archive.html

1.) We need to develop a strategy for leaving Iraq without a hasty pull-out that will encourage more terrorism.

He wanted to lose the war the slow way, by letting the French and the UN in on the game. Clearly no sane person would do that.

Clearly the United States scored a major win by not electing that widow chaser to the Presidency.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is absolutely no way to know the percentages of something like this. One could throw numbers around and attempt to get close, but they would still be wrong.

Whatever the percentage, the fact remains:
The "insurgents" are NOT fighting for the freedom and the right of self-determination for the Iraqi people - they are fighitng to quash the frail liberties and eliminate the fledgling democracy we now see.

They are, unequivocally, the bad guys, and in that, it doesnt reallly matter if they are ALL Sunnis from within Iraq -- they're still, unequivocally, the bad guys, their "right to resistance" notwithstanding.


Now, let it be said that I believe that the United States of America was founded upon a legal principle which recognizes a "right of resistance," and armed, if necessary. Our Revolution was a violent rebellion against the vested legal authority, and it was justified.

However, a "right of resistance," under that principle, exists only under certain narrow conditions. The animals who burn bodies and leave them on bridges, and perform brutal acts of horrific terror on camera, fulfill exactly none of them, neither in condition, behavior, or standing to do so.

For a right of resistance to apply, there have to be certain conditions. First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things. The Sunni and islamofascist bastards blowing up innocent Iraqis have not seen fit to participate in these evetns.

Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that much of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.

Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people undertaking the rebellion (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress)... and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.

This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.


One can only wonder why the liberal left, inside America as well as abroad, refuse to openly and unconditionally condemn these "insurgents" and argue that they must be defeated by whatever means necessary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clearly the United States scored a major win by not electing that widow chaser to the Presidency.

Some might consider this support for the argument that there is indeed a kind and benevolent God. :mrgreen:

 

[MSgt]

One can only wonder why the liberal left, inside America as well as abroad, refuse to openly and unconditionally condemn these "insurgents" and argue that they must be defeated by whatever means necessary.

Because their desperate wish for this all to just go away outweighs their convictions to deal with it. Because appeasing is easier than facing. And, of course, there's always the fact that the President is a Republican. I can remember when Republicans was making life difficult for Clinton during Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, even though that was the right thing to do also. Interestingly enough, those three areas also involved Islamic violence. So many people in America allow their political slavery bind them from doing the right thing. The difference between Clinton's endeavors and Bush's? Bush hasn't let the whiny opposition win over doing the right thing and finishing it. Clinton did.

As for the rest of your post...good points.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

One can only wonder why the liberal left, inside America as well as abroad, refuse to openly and unconditionally condemn these "insurgents" and argue that they must be defeated by whatever means necessary.

Oh, that's easy. The lefties in this country seek one thing only, to regain control of the White House and the Congress. If lies, distortions, and evasions are what they need to do this, then they'll lie, distort, and evade until it works.

They care about nothing else.

As for the rest of the world, they're yapping jackals at the heels of the lion, and seek nothing but to bring the US down so they can commence struggling amongst themselves for position. Everyone of those pissant little nations believes their the world's best, and everyone one of them is fully aware of a flaw in their belief. The United States is better.