Rumsfeld: What we've gained in Iraq

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think Rummy wrote the first line with Max in mind.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031701797.html

What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq

By Donald H. Rumsfeld
Sunday, March 19, 2006; B07

Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side"and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."

Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates -- who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years.

The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.

Fortunately, history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack. History is a bigger picture, and it takes some time and perspective to measure accurately.

Consider that in three years Iraq has gone from enduring a brutal dictatorship to electing a provisional government to ratifying a new constitution written by Iraqis to electing a permanent government last December. In each of these elections, the number of voters participating has increased significantly -- from 8.5 million in the January 2005 election to nearly 12 million in the December election -- in defiance of terrorists' threats and attacks.

One of the most important developments over the past year has been the increasing participation of Iraq's Sunni community in the political process. In the volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis are an overwhelming majority, voter turnout grew from 2 percent in January to 86 percent in December. Sunni sheiks and religious leaders who previously had been sympathetic to the insurgency are today meeting with coalition representatives, encouraging Iraqis to join the security forces and waging what violent extremists such as Abu al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda followers recognize as a "large-scale war" against them.

The terrorists are determined to stoke sectarian tension and are attempting to spark a civil war. But despite the many acts of violence and provocation, the vast majority of Iraqis have shown that they want their country to remain whole and free of ethnic conflict. We saw this last month after the attack on the Shiite shrine in Samarra, when leaders of Iraq's various political parties and religious groups condemned the violence and called for calm.

Another significant transformation has been in the size, capability and responsibility of Iraqi security forces. And this is vitally important, because it is Iraqis, after all, who must build and secure their own nation.

Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist's accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces -- not U.S. or coalition troops -- that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq's progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate.

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

Though there are those who will never be convinced that the cause in Iraq is worth the costs, anyone looking realistically at the world today -- at the terrorist threat we face -- can come to only one conclusion: Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.

Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.

What we need to understand is that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want the coalition to succeed. They want better futures for themselves and their families. They do not want the extremists to win. And they are risking their lives every day to secure their country.

That is well worth remembering on this anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The writer is secretary of defense.

[mburbank]

Man. Yeah, Kev, both becaue of the 'noose' metaphor, and the 'way' he used 'woutation marks', it's almost as if he was writing with me in mind.

I'd like to do a film interspersing one of his more recent "Things are going great in Iraq" speeches with Bahgdad Bob's speech were he ws saying the Iraqis were beating the crap out of the US and you could see US troop cariers in the background.

I particularly like that a rising body count and more frequent attacks are signs the terrorists are desperate and loosing. Following that logic, I guess if they laid down their weapons and killed themsleves, they'd drive us right out and establish a terrorist theocracy.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Man. Yeah, Kev, both becaue of the 'noose' metaphor, and the 'way' he used 'woutation marks', it's almost as if he was writing with me in mind.

It reminds me of the Bennett Brauer SNL bit Chris Farley used to do on the news segment.

I particularly like that a rising body count and more frequent attacks are signs the terrorists are desperate and loosing. Following that logic, I guess if they laid down their weapons and killed themsleves, they'd drive us right out and establish a terrorist theocracy.

Well, I think his point is that terrorists are becoming more desperate through their specific targets. By targeting a sacred Islamic site, they hoped to turn muslim against muslim. That does in fact seem pretty desperate for a bunch that claims to be working in the name of Allah and/or the Iraqi people.

[mburbank]

Okay, but is that desperation significant? If it had resulted in a mass realization of the need for unity as opposed to a round robin of retribution killings, I might get on the 'Last Throes' bus, but

A.) It seems to have worked failry well as a tactic

and

B.) Religous fanatics are always happy to subdivide into multiple groups who find each other every bit as guilty of heresy and offensive to God as all the other heretic abominations.

If desperation was a sign that any of the factions were closer to loosing than before they were desperate, that would be swell.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Okay, but is that desperation significant? If it had resulted in a mass realization of the need for unity as opposed to a round robin of retribution killings, I might get on the 'Last Throes' bus, but

When rival religious leaders, including the militant leader Muqtada Al Sadr, are encouraging Iraqis to lay down arms and not fall for the terrorist ploy, I'd say the bus is on its way.

A.) It seems to have worked failry well as a tactic

In what sense? It has been effective at killing American soldiers (although not NEARLY as effective as they would like), and killing innocent Iraqi civilians. It has caused rivaling religious leaders to stand together and denounce the violence, and it has pushed higher and higher voter turnout at every election in the country.

if by effective you mean these things, then ok.

If desperation was a sign that any of the factions were closer to loosing than before they were desperate, that would be swell.

There's nothing wrong with factions. The United States was a collection of factions. We (sort of) got over it. What's wrong is violence and a disregard for lawful behavior. Those are the things that will hold Iraq back, and those things have been tried and fought at every attempt. They can't beat American troops, so they blow up troops and civilians. They can't instigate civil war that way, so they target Islamic holy sites. The big civil war there never happened, and was partly stifled by Iraqis themselves. Iraqi spiritual and political leaders collectively denounced it, and called them out for their lame attempt to turn Iraqi vs. Iraqi. What more can they do? They are small, weak, and increasingly marginalizng themselves from sypmathizers.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/idea...p-339828c.html

The case for the war

Rep. Christopher Shays

Progress is not always swift or easy. In the three years since the Multinational Coalition liberated a troubled Iraq, progress toward a stable, free society has been halting, at times sublime and at times painful to watch. But it cannot be denied we have given the Iraqi people an opportunity for a better future.

Despite many missteps and misjudgments, democracy is taking root. There is no going back to the horrors of the dictator. The only course open to them, and us, is forward.

Today, in that journey, both our nations face a moment of truth. It will not be the last.

After three elections in just one year - to select an interim government, adopt a constitution and seat a fully representative parliament - most Iraqis have embraced the ballot over the bullet as the anvil on which to forge their national identity. They did so in numbers that beat turnout rates in most elections here in the United States.

Sunni participation in the last round of voting confirmed the inexorable momentum of the political over the military solution. Now, the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra, intended to fracture the emerging political consensus, presents the Iraqi people with yet another difficult election: continue to build a civil society or succumb to the provocation to civil war.

Our choice is between patience and politics, humility and hubris.

Early mistakes dug us, and the Iraqis, into a deep hole. In mid-2003, we failed to predict or detect the insurgency. The insurgency then rushed to exploit the security vacuum we created by summarily dismantling all Iraqi security forces. Indiscriminate firing of officials from Saddam Hussein's party stripped technical expertise from government ministries.

Cultural arrogance at the Coalition Provisional Authority delayed putting Iraqis in charge of their own fate.

Since 2004, the multinational forces have been playing catchup, helping a sovereign Iraq rebuild national military, police and border protection capabilities. Today there are more than 35 Iraqi Army combat battalions capable of fighting the insurgency, and more than 100,000 well-trained Ministry of Interior forces patrolling the streets and working to protect the infrastructure. U.S. government agencies, civilian contractors and nongovernmental organizations are working with Iraqis to rebuild the country.

American credibility in Iraq and across the Middle East has been invested in the outcome of these efforts. Any decision to disengage prematurely for our political convenience squanders that investment. Any judgment that a fractious Iraq is just not ready for democracy betrays our well-earned faith in the universal rights of the men and women so brutally oppressed by the regime of Saddam. Success in Iraq will not be measured in terms of declining U.S. troops, but in the growing number of Iraqis willing to put aside religious, tribal and ethnic divisions to fight, vote and pray for the future of their emerging democratic state.

I have traveled to Iraq 11 times since 2003 and have met remarkable people. When I ask them what their biggest fear is, it is not the violence. It is "that you will leave us."

One of many brave Iraqis I have had the honor of meeting is Mithal al-Alusi, a Sunni who was the first Iraqi political official to travel to Israel to address an antiterrorism conference. For his courage, he was removed from his position on the De-Baathification Commission, his personal security protection was withdrawn and he became a marked man. Insurgents gunned down his two sons while they were trying to protect him. Yet when he recently came to the United States, all he wanted was to go back to Iraq and help his nation become a democracy. In December, he was elected to the Iraqi Parliament. When he and those like him ask us to leave, we will know the time is right.

Shays (R-Conn.) is chairman of the House subcommittee on national security, emerging threats and international relations. He was the first member of Congress to enter Iraq after the war and has traveled to the region 11 times.

[mburbank]

Kevin, I'd say Shiite death squads and (iraqi) state sanctioned torture and abduction were an indication that those trying to provoke civil war are gaining some ground.

Do you really think that all the bodies turning up daily killed by execution are victims of a single terrorist cadre fomenting civil war?

What if it's, oh, I don't know, actual pro civil war factions in Iraq, like Sunnis who really do want a Suni dominated Iraq back and Shiites who really do want a Shiite dominated Iraq with a little revenge thrown in?

As far as Moqtada goes, History has shown time and again that stiring up the mob is one thing, but controlling it once it's stirred... that's something else.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Kevin, I'd say Shiite death squads and (iraqi) state sanctioned torture and abduction were an indication that those trying to provoke civil war are gaining some ground.

Are Siite death squads a product of our actions, or the product of a society which has never known freedom, democracy, transparency, and justice? Shiites do these things because it's what was done to them. We took care of the first problem by toppling the dictator who did that to them.

Fostering a respect for law and open government isn't something we can do with a bomb, and it's going to take a long time, a lot of money, and patience.

Max, it's gonna take time. A whole lot of precious time. It's gonna take money, a whole lot of spending money, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it, to do it right.

Do you really think that all the bodies turning up daily killed by execution are victims of a single terrorist cadre fomenting civil war?

No, but I also don't think that it's the opposite; some U.S./Shiite contrived conspiracy to knock off innocent people OMG GEGGY WAS RIGHT!!#@W sort of thing.

What if it's, oh, I don't know, actual pro civil war factions in Iraq, like Sunnis who really do want a Suni dominated Iraq back and Shiites who really do want a Shiite dominated Iraq with a little revenge thrown in?

I'm sure all of the above exists. But if you want to play the numbers game, compare that to the increasing turnout of Sunnis in the growing electoral process in Iraq. Compare it to the Sunni and Shiite leaders who came together to denounce the pathetic and cowardly attack in Samarra.

Meanwhile, these pro civil war factions are being foiled by Iraqi forces. For every small group of savages killing and kidnapping, their is an equal number of Iraqi men who want to serve and protect their country (not including the vast, silent majority that continues to turnout for elections).

[mburbank]

Kev; I think you may be somewhat missinterpretting me.

"Are Siite death squads a product of our actions, or the product of a society which has never known freedom, democracy, transparency, and justice? Shiites do these things because it's what was done to them. We took care of the first problem by toppling the dictator who did that to them. "

I don't disagree with that at all. Alls I'm saying is sectarian death squads are a good indicator of a state of civil war, and that this is a very preidctable outcome of solving their first problem.

"Fostering a respect for law and open government isn't something we can do with a bomb,"

Absolutely agree. But I don't know as any of the things we are currently doing will foster a respect for law or open government, and I think many of the things we have done and are doing, both with the best intentions and sometimes no intentions at all daily reduce the possability that ANYTHING we touch won't be totally tainted. The ONLY thing that I think had aspects of conspiracy and criminality was going to war in the first place, something I think the Whitehouse was determined to do long before 9/11. I don't even think it was for oil, I think it was for a lot of different, mostly ugly reasons. Since we invaded, it's been all about lack of forethought, incompetence, bad management, a smattering of profiteering and graft and some people with truly excellent motivations trying to do truly good work but very little command context in which to do that work. I think we stopped even trying to conspire with anyone over there when The Ahmed Chalabi/jake garner axis fell apart right at the very begining. I don't think there was ever a plan after that, overt or covert.

I'd say we have no idea what the balance of pro vs. anti civil war is right now, or to what degree the Iraqi armed forces and police or compromised or not by militia infiltration. The press have no real possability of in depth reporting and our government pays the Iraqi press to run fake news. I accept that this means for all I know the insurgency really is in it's last throes. But I don't think we know anything about it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Alls I'm saying is sectarian death squads are a good indicator of a state of civil war, and that this is a very preidctable outcome of solving their first problem.

And I'll once again ask that you look at the overall population every time you try to turn a small % of people into the norm.

While these squads are certainly a problem, and need to be addressed (more so the level of complicity from within the Iraqi government), they we shouldn't make the mistake of holding them up as a reflection of the entire country. Things are going to be unstable, and we certainly haven't "won" yet. That doesn't mean we aren't winning, and I think the level of good that we've accomplished there is a clear indication of that.

The ONLY thing that I think had aspects of conspiracy and criminality was going to war in the first place, something I think the Whitehouse was determined to do long before 9/11. I don't even think it was for oil, I think it was for a lot of different, mostly ugly reasons. Since we invaded, it's been all about lack of forethought, incompetence, bad management, a smattering of profiteering and graft and some people with truly excellent motivations trying to do truly good work but very little command context in which to do that work. I think we stopped even trying to conspire with anyone over there when The Ahmed Chalabi/jake garner axis fell apart right at the very begining. I don't think there was ever a plan after that, overt or covert.

Who needs Ahmed Chalabi? We have Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and thus have a slight handle on Muqtada Al Sadr. These are men who represent the actual majorities in Iraq (albeit violently at times in the case of Al Sadr). These are just two examples of men who get it, and who are starting to "get it". Respectively.

I'd say we have no idea what the balance of pro vs. anti civil war is right now, or to what degree the Iraqi armed forces and police or compromised or not by militia infiltration.

Uh, ok, so then once again, it would seem logical to make assumptions off of what numbers we actually do have, right?

And I think that's a funny question to begin with. "Are you FOR or AGAINST violent civil war in Iraq???" Gee, I wonder what most folks might say to that. Just like everywhere else, the smallest groups will be the loudest, becasue they know they are the smallest. Here in America we use blogs, in Iraq they're using roadside bombs. This is the divide that needs to be fixed.

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah but it turns out Sistani hates women and fags almost as much as Axel Rose. Oh wait, he said axis, not axil.

Max, I hope you're not working under the short sighted pretense that the "civil war", which is really the ol' timey Sunni/Shiite war with rebranded new terminology, can somehow be described as a bi-product of our military action in Iraq. What was the civil climate prior to a US invasion anyway? I mean, we should probably should take into account decades of wars with Iran, and the majority of Saddam's victims while in power... right?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You're right about Sistani, although I have I THINK I've read statements where he has shown support for the female quotas in the new government, and has also been supportive of an open, more secular government. I even think he has spoken against the courts reflecting those in Iran, but I'll have to double check.

[Abcdxxxx]

That sounds right, but isn't that more like "of course you can be in government, welcome.... just don't expect equal rights" ?
Kind of like how it used to be "of course you can get a PHD, welcome.... just don't expect to use it".

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I suppose you could be right, but we all know that Iraq probably won't be like the U.S.

But we can hope for Turkey or India, no?

[Preechr]

I dunno... Sounds a lot like Alabama, which IS a PART of the US.

[mburbank]

"Max, I hope you're not working under the short sighted pretense that the "civil war", which is really the ol' timey Sunni/Shiite war with rebranded new terminology, can somehow be described as a bi-product of our military action in Iraq. "

Only in it's timing. I don't think it would probably be happening right now, and what would be happening would be in some ways worse and in some ways better. What we did was open the gate and then sit in front of it. I don't think we caused it, but, and here's my main point, I honestly, sincerely don't think we can do anything positive about it. think any side we lend any help to is immediately tainted by it, and I think we muddy already really muddy waters doing shit like torturing people, saying we were going to tear down Ahbu Graib and then deciding we'll give it to a government that hasn't even been formed yet and generally killing a lot of people. I'm with Murtha on this one. I do not see the up side of our being on the ground in Iraq.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

What we did was open the gate and then sit in front of it. I don't think we caused it, but, and here's my main point, I honestly, sincerely don't think we can do anything positive about it. think any side we lend any help to is immediately tainted by it

Well for starters, as far as civil war goes, this is the Charlie Browniest of them all. The media and the Daily Kos keep promising me a civil war, and these damn Iraqis keep letting me down.

Secondly, let's putting on our thinking caps, and speculate on what might happen were we to leave. I have been reading some Lefty blogs, and I've seen some screwy ideas. The best was that as soon as we leave, all Iraqis would get behind Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and Iraq would rebuild itself and live in peace with gumdrops and rainbows off of their oil revenue. Do we need to even talk about how stupid an idea that is?

My guess is that the Kurds would leave the table immediately. Why stay? They already have a self-sufficient government, militias, and culture. They will walk.

My guess is that the regions that have the oil will grab the oil, and hire thugs, terrorists, and stupid kids to protect it (or maybe American contractors!). This means no centralized oil revenue running through Baghdad, no viable tax foundation, no country of Iraq.

Other portions of iraq will fall even further into poverty and violence. And where we pull out, the Mullahs offering Islam and tonic water cures will step in. So will Iran. So will Al Qaeda. So will every shady radical who wants an unstable place that even the Americans won't touch. Meet post-Soviet Afghanistan.

That's just one speculation. And once we do that, and everything that has been gained there collapses, we'll probably feel really good about the $10 billion/month we're paying now.

[mburbank]

I only have one question about all of that Kev, which is how do you see our staying in Iraq chnaging any aspect of yur post in any way whatsoever?

Do you think if we stick around and keep getting kiled and killing people and making showy little grandstands like Operation photograph our helicopters that all Iraqis will get behind Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and Iraq will let us rebuild it with reconstruction money we've already blown on security, graft, and giving it away in sacks without tracking it, and live in peace with gumdrops and rainbows off of their oil revenue? Do we need to even talk about how stupid an idea that is?

Supposedly, we already handed over sovereignity, so what are we doing that's going to keep the Kurds at the table one instant longer than serves their legitimate interests? What would we say to them? "Even though you've been our allies and your're the closest thing to stability Iraq has, if you walk we won't support you?" How would that be more credible if we're there than if we're not? We can stop occupying Iraq and offer the same protections we offerd the Kurds before we started occupying Iraq.

I can think of things our military presence is making worse there. What are we making better? How much more training before loyalty to a unified Iraq repalces traibal loyalty is the military and police? How does that balance against the continuing alienation our presence causes?

What is the mission? Just stay the course until a unity government appears and everybody says 'Hey! This unity government appeared and suddenly it's all Gumdrops and Rainbows! I guess we realy do like the Americans! We actually do understand democracy now and we'll share our oil and be nice to women and provide a willing, peaceful, happy presence for your permanent military presence in the region and our neighbors will see our gumdrops and rainbows and say "That's what we want too, America! Thanks for the Democracy!"

What is the mission, how would we know if victory was achieved, and are there any circumstances under which we'd accept the mission had failed? Because my assesment is that whatever the hell the mission is, our idea is that no matter how far we get from it and no matter the inidcations that not only are we not achieveing it, we are actively hindering it, we intend to stay until 'victory is achieved' even if that means never, and if you ask if that's wht we're saying then you're giving comfort and aid to the terrorists. [/i]

[Abcdxxxx]

What are we making better? Seriously?

I was about to start listing things, but then I realized it's near impossible not to recognize the move towards beterment for the Iraqi people... unless you just don't want to admit there's some good going on out there. I can admit there's some bad shit coming about, but c'mon, there's been civil unrest there for decades...when was the last time you had all factions sitting in the same room forming a government?

[mburbank]

See, I'm very cyncial about this. I'd be over the moon happy to see myself proven wrong, and I'm not kidding about that.

Everybody says them in a room together is meaningful all on it's own, or at least it's better than nothing. I think until something useful comes out of that room, it's the same as nothing, AND I don't think us being there right now makes them more likely to be in the room.

They not only have to form a unity government, they have to actualy work together, actually abide by their constitution, actually enforce action of some kind if their constitution is violated, AND convey all the to the people and make it stick in the face of ongoing organized violence. A very tall order, but not impossible, and worthy.

Here's my key issue. Not only do I think our presence helps the possability that this tll ordr could be accomplished, I do not see how our continued presence does anything but lessen the chances of it's scusses.

What action do we take that helps this goal and doesn't hinder it? Anyone we kill with american munitions is a martyr. The people we accidentally kill in the process are gasoline on the fire. Anyone we back is an American pawn. We are building massive, fortified bases that Iraqis have to look at and think 'These guys are never leaving'.

Our stick works against us as much as for us. Our carrots can be offered without a massive occupying force. As long as we are their, we are a rallying point for extremism. 'Lets go kill the invading infidel and the betraying cur that ally themselves with them.' is a very powerful draw.

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay, so you obviously can't get a handle on how monumental is was for the elections, or for a kurd to even get on the ballot. I'm not pointing anything new out to you, which kind of indicates that only the negatives impress you. See, I don't think you even care about Iraqis.... or what would happen if we left Iraq.... you just really get off when there's egg on the administrations face.

[mburbank]

That's incredably close minded of you AbcfdaiUSHKAG.

And it's wrong. The kind of 'egg' I like on the administrations 'face' is when Dick Chenney shoots some old guy but the guy pulls through. THat's hysterical. The kind of 'egg' that results in thousands of deaths? Not so enjoyable to me. And a hearty 'fuck you' for the implication. Every Iraqi who died in buildings we blew up suffered exactly the same way the people in the twin towers did, as did their survivors, in a war based on lies.

It is my belief that suffering is not negated by a Kurd getting on a ballot, an achievement yes, but one that is purely symbolic if it does not end up leading to an Iraq where people are not slaughtered wholesale on a daily basis, by us or each other. I hope whole heartedly that it does lead to that day.

I do not think our CURRENT presence NOW puts us in a position to hasten that day. I DO think we actually reduce the possability by being there NOW. I also think we should never have gone there, but that's another issue entirely. You want to disagree? Great. You want to make a counter argument? Swell. You want to imply that I care more about what this does to W's poll numbers than I do about people getting torn to dog food, you can kiss my ass. You're damn right you're not pointing out anything new to me. You can tell me you think I don't care what happens if we leave Iraq, but you haven't told me how you think our staying makes those things any less likely. Take a whack at that before you make some candy ass statement about where I rate the value of human life. We all recognize you are the soul voice of authority on all things middle eastern. Use your vast knowledge to explainto me what we are going to do with Guns and Bombs and Americans that might actively HELP do something more concrete than the admittedly significant placement of names on ballots, which they currently are. I think we have done absolutely as much good as we are going to do. I think we might well have done a lot more good, but I think it's far too late for that, we screwed that pooch and kicked it in the ass on it's way out the door. You know what YOU get off on AzxcnZi7asi? Being a pompous arrogant know it all gas bag. Please note, I'm not saying you 'get off' on thinking you're right more than you care about the Iraqi people just 'cause we disagree. Only a huge suck nugget would think something like that. I just think you're a gas bag is all. Respectfully.

[Abcdxxxx]

Hey man, don't bame me becaue you bought that "AMERICA IS THE WORLDS BIGGEST TERRORIST" Tshirt. You could trade that in for a confederate flag with your logic.

See, suffering IS negated by Kurds, and Women on the ballot. There is a unilateral Iraqi parliament which was sworn in on the 17th, complete wit hthe return of the Iraqi flag, and national anthem. It's not merely symbolic to me. It's called a payoff, the light at the end of the tunnel, and progress in the face of suffering is a process which sometimes comes at the end of a sword. You're entitled to devalue these things, or write them off as trivial but then I'm entitled to say you don't give a shit about Iraqis, or know the first thing about them. I think our troops are being mismanaged out there....but it doesn't cloud my ability to see some positives. Do you see any positives, at all, or are you such a cynical ideologue that you just skip over those news articles?

[Abcdxxxx]

Let me appeal to the side of you which needs a blog to legitamize your opinions for you.....

Thursday, February 23, 2006

We Are All Misinformed!

You guys always said you don’t get all the news from Iraq. And I always agreed with you!

I was shocked today when I read the news in the foreign newspapers. No one emphasized the marvelous cooperation and solidarity between the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq yesterday after the bombing of one of the most respected and visited holy sites in Islam, the Askariyah shrine, which is in Samarra city north of Baghdad. The shrine contains the remains of two 9th century Imams, Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hasan Askari. They are now wrongly considered as Shiite Imams. [Just so you know, in the 9th century there weren't Shiites and Sunnis yet. There were Muslims, who were fighting each other over power. And later on they invented Sunni and Shiite parts of Islam. Also for a background, all the dead “Shiite” Imams of the earlier centuries, like Mousa Kadhum, Ali, Hussein, and others, are considered as Sunni Imams too and are very much respected by all Muslims because they descend from Profit Muhammed. Sunni Imams, like Abu Haneefa, Abdul Qadir Gailani, Ahmed Rifaie, and others, cannot be considered as Shiite Imams because not all of them share the same grandfather. Therefore, I told my friends yesterday that the terrorists played it wrong. if they want to provoke a civil war, they should attack shrines of Sunni Imams, because that would upset more Sunnis than Shiites, not like yesterday. Yesterday, the attack upset and angered Sunnis and Shiites equally.]

Here are some information,which, for whatever reason, you don’t get in your news about the bombing:

The first reaction to the bombing which “targeted a Shiite” shrine came from the Sunni residents of Samarra. The first demonstration to condemn the attack was held spontaneously by Sunnis in the area where the shrine is. Almost all Sunni leaders went on TV to condemn the attack and show solidarity and unity with the Shiites. Here are some of what the Sunni leaders said on TVs all day yesterday [that’s what I could get]

- Wafiq Samarraie, a Sunni politician from Samarra city and serves as Iraq’s president’s advisor for security issues. [from Arabiya satellite channel]
He said “Iamam Ali al-Hadi is not only for Shiites. The shrine is a symbol of all Iraqis and of Samara city in particular. I demand to dismiss the governor of the province and take all the legal procedures to prevent strife. There will be no strife in Iraq. Iraqis will not fight each other. Samarra city should be protected. The information is very clear. The government should have chased the terrorists in eastern Samarra and they are a few. The government and the governor should have done something this issue. I tell the tribes in Samarra, especially in eastern Samarra, that ‘ it is a shame to leave the strangers among you. You should inform the police force about them.’”

- The Iraqi Islamic Party, IIP, one of the most powerful Sunni political and religious groups, issued a statement saying: “The size of the wicked conspiracy that is targeting the Iraqis, their sacred symbols, and unity, is clear now. After the series of attacking mosques and assassinations of clergies, people of Samarra woke up today on the bombing of Imam Ali Al-Hadi dome. We, the Iraqi Islamic Party/ Samarra branch, denounce this criminal act and demand a wide investigation to reveal the controversies that raise many questions on who was behind this incident. The commandos have cordoned the holy shrine since last night and tide up its guards and put them in a room and the people of Samarra released them after the bombing. The commandos prevented shop owners from going to their shops in the morning and there was movement of the occupation forces in the city all night long. All these controversies and others need an honest and wide investigation to find the real criminals and not hide them no matter what the reason is. We in the Iraqi Islamic Party/ Samarra branch, urge our people to go in wide, peaceful demonstrations to condemn this crime. We also remind all Iraqis to protect their unity to prevent the chance for suspicious conspiracies, which target all Iraqis with no exception. IIP/ Samarra branch”

- Iraq’s Kurdish president, Jalal Talbani, net with tribal leaders and prominent figures from Salahudin province, where Samarra city is, and talked about the incident. [from Iraqiya satellite channel]
He said “This is a crime against Iraq as a whole, not against Shiites only. It aims to provoke a sectarian strife and a civil war among us. I hope the Sunni clergies would condemn this crime. We all are facing a conspiracy against Iraq and its entity. Therefore we should all unite to prevent the danger of civil war.”

- Tariq al-Hashimi, secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, held a press conference yesterday. Some of what he said was: “"29 mosques were attacked either by burning or occupation using missiles and grenades. The IIP considers these attacks as historical crimes which everybody should work on stooping them. we call on everybody for the self control. There is a conspiracy against the Iraqi people. Everyone should cooperate to stop this conspiracy. This is a battle in which everyone wants to hurt the other."

- Abdil Aziz Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Shiite party that controls the country now, appeared on Arabiya satellite channel and said: “The Sunnis had honorable reaction today. They rejected and condemned this crime. All of us should hold our hands together to combat terrorism.”

- Iraq’s Marjiyas [religious authorities] Shiite and Sunni, they all called on people to self-control and “peacefully” demonstrate together to condemn the attack. They specifically asked people “not to attack Sunni mosques or shrines.”

I was amazed how only the provocative and civil-war-style quotes were published today in the newspapers. Almost no newspaper showed how great, it appeared to us, the solidarity among Iraqis was yesterday. It is true that Sunni mosques were attacked by unknown men yesterday, and some Sunnis were killed. But that wasn’t the only thing happened as a reaction. Newspapers should have been neutral, as we were taught, and show both sides. Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Arabs, Christians, Sabians, Turkumans, and others publicly condemned the attack, but no one wanted to show the truth. I am not saying there will be no riots in Iraq to react to the shrine attack. I am not saying there weren't mosques that were attacked yesterday and burned down. I am not saying that Shiites and Sunnis kissed and hugged after the attack yesterday. All what I am saying is that the news made Iraqis look like if they were fighting each other widely in the streets, which is not true. The news only made Iraqis sound like barbarians killing each other. There are barbarian Iraqis, like other people in the world, I am not saying all Iraqis are perfect and compete with angels in their manners. But why when anything good happens, they show the bad side of it too in their stories, but when any bad thing to happen, they only write about it and not the good sides around it?

All expect civil war in Iraq, which might happen although I don’t believe it would. Therefore, they want to contribute to the civil war’s first step. Shame on you all! Shame on the “free and honest” press!
http://twentyfourstepstoliberty.blogspot.com/

[mburbank]

"Hey man, don't bame me becaue you bought that "AMERICA IS THE WORLDS BIGGEST TERRORIST" Tshirt."
-Abcdrunch

Uh, blow me? I don't think that, I never said that. My T-shirt reads "COUNTRY WITH THE LARGEST ARSENAL". I also have bumper sticker that says "CAUTION: THIS CAR ENGAGES IN PRE-EMPTIVE WAR" So far, if the World's Biggest Terrorist is a meaningful monikker to you, Osama Bin Laden still holds that title. We lost interest in him a while back and launched a war on a country that had nothing to do with him.

"suffering IS negated by Kurds, and Women on the ballot."

Huhn. nd hear I thought that was an opinion as opposed to a law of physics on how suffering gets negated. Forgive me for forgetting you were speaking ex cathedra.

"There is a unilateral Iraqi parliament which was sworn in on the 17th, complete wit hthe return of the Iraqi flag, and national anthem. "
-Abcdomnialflu

Yeah, they managed to meet for a half hour. My bad for confusing flags and songs with symbols. I'm sure someone suffering from symbolic phosphorou burns appreciattes the difference. I know, I know, comments like that mean I'm a terorist.

"You're entitled to devalue these things, or write them off as trivial but then I'm entitled to say you don't give a shit about Iraqis, or know the first thing about them."
-Abcadabcadabcadatsallfolks

Swell, meaningless, but swell. I coud easily draw similar cnclusions and say that you value colored cloth and songs over living, breathing children , but I'd have to be a self absorded dick wildly extrapolating your pesonal worth based on your 'entitlement' to a political opinion to think anything like that.

I think (and thank god you let me kow I'm entited to) that the positives are vastly outweighed by the negatives, that what positives we can bestow have already been bestowed. I do not see how our continued presence will prevent any of the unnamed bad things you see coming to pass if we leave. Partly because you don't name them, but mostly because no one seem to have any idea what our military might do to prevent them happening. We've tried blowing stuff up and it isn't helping anymore and several different groups of Iraqis now have the capacity to blow things up by themselves.

As for your blog, (and not to be cyncial, but did you check to see if the pentagon paid for it or the Lincoln Group wrote it? I hear that happens sometimes) and whatever snyde bullshit you intend to imply by using it, I applaud all the solidarity it reports. Argubaly along with all the bad stuff we did invading a country over weapons they didn't posess and ties to terrorists they didn't have, we helped lay the groundwork for this solidarity. Did I miss something, or is there nothing in there saying how our continued, armed, military presence supports this?

Is it too much of a terrorist action to pose that question? Should I write it on a T-shirt so you can 'wrap your head around it'? Or put it on some cloth and run it up a pole or sing it so it would become more meaningful for you?