In Mosul

[bullshitdetector]

It has changed in a sense where you cannot stop people who are not peace seeking and appreciative from being violent ( The insurgents who stab us in the back and the terrorists). What has not changed is that war is never predictable and anyones forecast of it can be a 50/50 shot, the one thing the frog eaters got right is that the end of force has not come, and it shouldn't either. The only thing left not considered is if force was not continued what the outcome would be, we sure know what not using force prior to 9/11 from 8 years of frog eater concept got us one fine day in september 01, don't we?

[bishop]

one could also say that we've stabbed the iraqis in the back.. we move in to "liberate" them, and kill off a cool thousand or ten thousand.. then we fail to spend some 90% of the reconstruction fund - aimed to improve the situation over there (thinking that a population with running water and electricity will be a happier population). now we talk about democracy, as we're posed to install our choice puppet pick - allawi..


and what this has to do with 9/11 is beyond me. but thanks for that bit of regurgitated propaganda.

[bullshitdetector]

Regurgitated propaganda? Yea whatever...So where do we get the sliding figures of 1 or 10 thousand?

[bishop]

yeah... 9/11 + iraq = propaganda. sorry, but there was never any connection whatsoever. you can give me some propaganda to try and persuade me, but it's not going to work. and no, my refusal to buy the bullshit does not mean that i'm not interested in combatting terror.. quite the opposite in fact, i am interested in getting them - they weren't in iraq before we went there.

our noble military thinks that keeping track of civilian deaths isn't worth doing - yet we'll readily spout out figures about "enemy" casualties. my sliding figure of 1 - 10 thousand was a sarcastic statement. this site keeps the best documented account of civilian deaths, so this is the only credible estimate available:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Nono]

Originally posted by BSd ... the one thing the frog eaters got right is that the end of force has not come ...

That's a load of ill-informed horsepoop (along with weird juxtaposition of verb tenses: they were right that there has been no end to violence...). A lot of people (not just the French, but also many a lot closer to home) forecast exactly the sort of quagmire you're now thrashing around in. Remember all the names you called them at the time?

The insurgents who stab us in the back ...

Those scoundrels! Just imagine that: stabbing you in the back. How could they?! (Interesting. That's also the image that Hitler was always using.)

So where do we get the sliding figures of 1 or 10 thousand?

Actually, some independent estimates go as high as 100,000 civilian dead. Those who pour scorn on US military propaganda include the globally respected British medical journal The Lancet. And the worse things go for the Americans, the more heavily and indiscriminately y'all bomb, which causes even worse civilian casualties and drives support for the insurgents even higher.

Nice work., boys.

[Sonart]

Originally posted by Dieval+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think that removing the insurgents/terrorists from a city full of beheading chambers & bomb-making factories will help put a stop to the "insurrectionists", is a step toward stablizing Iraq, and will win over the Iraqi's hearts and minds... [/b]

And the Iraqis will be swarming the streets with flowers, welcoming the liberating Americans, and Iraq's oil income will pay for our short stay in Iraq, and we'll find those WMD any day now, and the insurgency is just a small group of 'Dead Enders', and the Coalition will hang tough under America's valiant leadership.

<!--QuoteBegin-BSD
It has changed in a sense where you cannot stop people who are not peace seeking and appreciative from being violent ( The insurgents who stab us in the back and the terrorists). [/quote]
Interesting observation, since Bush was warned by his CIA, his State Department and his senior military that this would be exactly the case, yet LBDubya and Rumsnamara refused to believe the obvious.

And I love your spin. "...cannot stop people who are not peace seeking and appreciative from being violent". How about simply "you cannot stop people who do not want to be occupied by an imperialist force from resisting the occupation of their country."

What has not changed is that war is never predictable and anyones forecast of it can be a 50/50 shot, the one thing the frog eaters got right is that the end of force has not come, and it shouldn't either.

Frog eaters? I see, when in doubt, blame the French, and ignore that those here who warned that occupying Iraq was an invitation to quagmire got right everything that Dear Leader and the Cabal got wrong. But who are we? Why not rely on those who know.

Like those who told us that Boy George and the NeoCons were intent on invading Iraq from the day they took office. Or his own Secretary of State who correctly explained that if you break it, own it.

--"Powell admits he is a source for Bob Woodward's new book on the Iraq War, called "Plan of Attack." According to Woodward, Powell was kept out of the loop and only reluctantly went along with war plans. Powell refers to war planners close to Vice President Dick Cheney as the "Gestapo" and accuses Cheney of having war "fever." When President Bush decides on war, Powell asks if he understands the consequences. He warns Bush that "If you break it, you own it ."--

Or his combined intelligence community who were correct in warning that a never ending guerilla war awaited our occupation.

--"an invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict."--

--"a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or U.S.-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein's government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare"--

--"a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives"--

Our his senior military from warning about the same.

--"We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started.... Attacking Iraq now will cause a lot of problems. It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way and all those who never fired a shot in anger and are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history.... I worry about the commitment and cost of the aftermath.... You could inherit the country of Iraq if you're willing to do it -- if our economy is so great that you're willing to put billions of dollars into reforming Iraq, if you want to put soldiers that are already stretched thin all around the world and add them into a security force there forever."-- General Anthony Zinni , former commander in chief, U.S. Central Command, and Bush's former special envoy to the Middle East

Bush's reelection may make that all moot, but it doesn't change Bush's gross incompetence in pinning us down for the next ten years in an unwinnable guerilla war of 'Liberation'.

[bullshitdetector]

Originally posted by bishop, yeah... 9/11 + iraq = propaganda. sorry, but there was never any connection whatsoever. you can give me some propaganda to try and persuade me, but it's not going to work. and no, my refusal to buy the bullshit does not mean that i'm not interested in combatting terror.. quite the opposite in fact, i am interested in getting them - they weren't in iraq before we went there. our noble military thinks that keeping track of civilian deaths isn't worth doing - yet we'll readily spout out figures about "enemy" casualties. my sliding figure of 1 - 10 thousand was a sarcastic statement. this site keeps the best documented account of civilian deaths, so this is the only credible estimate available: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Ok, self notation, "Bishop will never believe Iraq=9/11, bullshitdetector believes there was a connection. Make sure not to bother discussing said topic with Bishop, Bishop believes our military kills hundreds of thousands of civilians regularly and takes civilian casualties lightly. Bullshitdetector knows and respects his military and troops better than that." end note.

[Nono]

Originally posted by BSd Ok, self notation, "Bishop will never believe Iraq=9/11, bullshitdetector believes there was a connection. Make sure not to bother discussing said topic with Bishop, Bishop believes our military kills hundreds of thousands of civilians regularly and takes civilian casualties lightly. Bullshitdetector knows and respects his military and troops better than that." end note.

Pure strawman bullshit. How about coming back with some verifiable factual debate for a change?

[bullshitdetector]

I dont need to verify my own beliefs, I only need to verify if I want you to believe it. Or is there something written somewhere that I am not entitled to my own beliefs?

[bullshitdetector]

BTW, "Pure strawman bullshit " is great debating strategy, where did you learn it, I'm so envious.

[Texans 4 Furors]

There is a connection between Saddam and 9/11. That connection is William Kristol, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and all the others that signed PNACs, "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" which specially states that another "Pearl Harbor" is needed to invade Iraq in order to create a military stronghold in order to dominate the Middle East.... Saddam + PNAC= 9/11

[Nono]

Originally posted by BSd I dont need to verify my own beliefs

Just as well. They wouldn't bear the verification.
Such an enquiring mind.

Is there something written somewhere that I am not entitled to my own beliefs?

More strawman bullshit, bullshit. Who's challenging your rights? You're entitled to believe whatever bullshit you please.

"Pure strawman bullshit " is great debating strategy

That ain't debating strategy. That's diagnosis.

[bishop]

one thing to come here bringing opinions.. another to come bringing more flame than debate. thanks dsb.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Originally posted by bishop, one thing to come here bringing opinions.. another to come bringing more flame than debate. thanks dsb.

I have no dog in this but you have no room to talk, Bishop, you are engaging in flame yourself.

[bullshitdetector]

Originally posted by Nono,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nono,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-BSd I dont need to verify my own beliefs

Just as well. They wouldn't bear the verification.
Such an enquiring mind.



More strawman bullshit, bullshit. Who's challenging your rights? You're entitled to believe whatever bullshit you please.



That ain't debating strategy. That's diagnosis.[/b][/quote]


Wow, you're real cool.

[OberonDOtherseid]

I have to hand it to you BSD, you're taking this nonsense pretty well.

[bullshitdetector]

Originally posted by OberonDOtherseid, I have to hand it to you BSD, you're taking this nonsense pretty well.

It's nothing, if you just let them respond while they complain about what they themselves do it is worth all the patience in the world. They do my bidding for me.

[rmnunez]

Mosul is next, they are gradually enclosing the enemy (insurgency/terrorists) and its working pretty well. I saw some news on action near the Syrian border, but expect the ruckus raised in Mosul when Fallujah heated up invites an answer, troops are quickly being redeployed from Fallujah already. What should happen next is about 4 more days of nit-picking in Fallujah, then the bulk of those 10 thousand get moved back into their bases in Mosul. The Iraqi National Guard is supposed to take care of the mopping up and the reconstruction teams are are lightly armed but have to move in right away. Once the basics are back online the people can be allowed back into areas 'cleared' of the enemy. That should be in about a week or 10 days in Fallujah.

Mosul heated up while the Americans moved those 10 thousand to Fallujah, now it will be reinforced by about 1000 more terrorist/insurgents who will likely have been tracked on their return so the Americans have gained some valuable intelligence on deployments in Mosul. The American tactics and their 'feint' in Fallujah give the insurgents (though not the terrorists) a bit of an advantage, but the Americans constitute an overwhelming force and will surely annihilate them in Mosul too.

Only if it turns out the collateral damage in Fallujah is so great it displeases Allawi, will there be any hesitation to just carry on where they left off in Mosul. Fittingly Samarra (destiny) will be last.

[bishop]

you're right oberon.. gotta remember not to feed the troll.

rmnunez... i agree with your assessment. however, the only way we can succeed in mosul would be to do the exact same thing that we did in fallujah. that would make yet another major city that we've destroyed. surely to continue this policy will increasingly anger iraqis, do you disagree? i don't see allawi as having the power you seem to think he has though.. he has power given to him by us, not the iraqi people. he is beholden to us, not the iraqi people.

i'm confused about your last comment about samarra being destiny.. is this some sort of evangelical/apocalyptic statement?

[OberonDOtherseid]

Who are you calling a troll and why? If you don't agree with him Bishop you should practice more of what you preach and stop the antics. Complaining about it when you are the one engaging in flaming someone makes you look rather foolish, don't you think?