Soldiers face murder in Iraq

[ziggytrix]

So you disagree with the assment that only 10% at most of the resistance is comprised of foreign fighters? Or you think that since the insurgency doesn't represent ALL Iraqis, then they don't represent any of them? Where's the logic in that?

Or would you assert that were the foreign fighters to be removed from the picture, the Iraqi resistance would crumble? You could make that argument, but you'd need to back it up with something of substance.

I agree that not sealing off the borders has worsened the situation, but how exactly do you propose sealing off 2281 miles of border? That's a hell of a project. Too bad you don't work for the Pentagon, I'm sure you could have showed them how to do it.

[Abcdxxxx]

I said the resistance does not represent the Iraqi's.

What's most relevant is who is strategizing, arming, and aiding these groups. This is not a new wave of Republican Gaurd. It's largely foriegn interest.

[mburbank]

I have no idea if that's true or not, but I don't think it has mmuch to do with wether or not the reistance represents Iraqis. Of course it represents some of them. Yes, if you were able to cut off all their funding and intercept all their weapons, you might well be able to crush them (and that might be very good) but THAT doesn't change representation either.

Representation is about what people want. You can argue about percentages, but a block of the Iraqi people want us out of the country badly enough to kill us. Take away their money and weapons and they'll still want us out.

That doesn't make me like them, or agree with them, or support them, or commit treason by mentioning them, I just think it's absurd to pretend they aren't there.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm not arguing percentages, or even arguing that this movement will collapse without foriegn fighters, or aid .... that was your simpleton friend's assumptions.

I am arguing that it's far more complex then "Iraqis aren't happy the US invaded, so this is how they're responding". This is not the response of the Iraqi people. It's Iran getting involved, it's Syria getting involved, it's rogue terror groups setting up shop and recruiting, it's Iraqis needing employment joining up, it's religious extremists fighting for comepletely unrelated reasons, it's the US government trying to fund opposition groups, it's the Iraqi government trying to fund their own opposition groups to keep a handle on things - and wether or not real life Iraqis are following the pied piper and joining up with these mlitia groups does not make it indicative of an "Iraqi response". The style of attacks, the ideologies, the weaponry involved, the funding, and so on, are not representative.

[Abcdxxxx]

let's try it this way...

do you really think religious radicals, Al Qaeda, and Baathists represent the interests of the Iraqi people? You haven't been making a distinction, which is sort of odd considering how obsessed you are with making the distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorism (which by the way, despite it's name, and use of Koranic worship, has nothing to do with Islam).

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

I'm not arguing percentages, or even arguing that this movement will collapse without foriegn fighters, or aid .... that was your simpleton friend's assumptions.

Hey ABCD, quick English question: how long have "questions" and "assumptions" been synonyms?

You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not. I could point you to polls that say 2/3 of the Iraqi population say they oppose the US presence. It'd be nice to see some references or at least some numbers you could back up for a statement as ambiguous as the resistance "is largely foreign interest" but whatever, we're supposed to do our own research to back up your opinions, is that it?

So let's agree for the moment that the statement "the current resistance against the US or whatever it is we're seeing now does not represent Iraqi's" is wholly factual, which I would say you cannot possibly know for fact, but since you say it is so, only a simpleton would take issue with it. Fine, let's pretend for the moment you do, in fact, have the ability to look into the hearts of a nascent nation and know what they want, even when they don't agree about what they want. I am envious of your supernatural talents. Were you born with this power, or did you just huff a lot of solvents in your youth?


So what about my other question? How do you expect the United States Armed Forces to seal off 2281 miles of border in foreign lands? We haven't even been able to seal off 1951 miles of our own Southern border. Was that not a legitimate question? If that in not a legitimate question, then why do you think it was not done?

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

I am arguing that it's far more complex then "Iraqis aren't happy the US invaded, so this is how they're responding". This is not the response of the Iraqi people. It's Iran getting involved, it's Syria getting involved, it's rogue terror groups setting up shop and recruiting, it's Iraqis needing employment joining up, it's religious extremists fighting for comepletely unrelated reasons, it's the US government trying to fund opposition groups, it's the Iraqi government trying to fund their own opposition groups to keep a handle on things

I'd agree with this premise that the ever so ambigious "it" is far more complex, but assuming by "it" you mean to describe the insurgency in Iraq, I don't think you've really added anything new to the "conversation" there, except maybe the point that the US and Iraq governments are directly funding insurgents.... that's a fairly interesting thing you just said, and certainly new to the discussion here.

do you really think religious radicals, Al Qaeda, and Baathists represent the interests of the Iraqi people? You haven't been making a distinction

I could argue that the Iraqi people lack the unity to have their interests represented by anyone. But that's not helpful. Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up? Fucking hell, you ask for substance and then you complain about THAT?!

[Abcdxxxx]

I could point you to polls that say 2/3 of the Iraqi population say they oppose the US presence.

Please do. Then point out where it says their opinions on the US presence correspond to their opinions on the insurgency.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

point out where it says their opinions on the US presence correspond to their opinions on the insurgency.

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up?

It's kind of a no-brainer, and doesn't really address the issue that the insurgency* does represent the interests of specific Iraqis* or foreigners* or whomever. Clearly it's not in the best interests of the Iraqi people*.

This is a stupid semantics debate.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm sure you think so. It's not semantics at all. Here is a chance for you to fight generalities and actually be accurate for once and you're too busy playing with the red pen up your ass.

Aren't you always arguing that a small minority of Muslims support terror, along with radical ideaologies? ...because if so, isn’t it a bit contradictory to then also argue that Iraq in it’s entirety, overwhelmingly supports this same movement?!?!?!?!? You're suggesting that the number of foriegn fighters, or the opinion polls about US policy are relevant proof of Iraq's own support for what you have credited as being their own insurgency.

So when you say stupid shit like this:

Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up? Fucking hell, you ask for substance and then you complain about THAT?!

The question really is, why do you keep attributing the aggression to the victims of this same movement? Why are you arguing that a civil war of ideologically opposed groups can be imposed on "the Iraqis" and think it's a-ok as long as you're discussing anti-US sentiment? As if that's what the insurgency is strictly about. If it fits your own anti-Government agenda, then you think it's okay to run with it.

You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not.

So I think this is you arguing that the insurgency in all varieties does in fact represent the interests of Iraqi people? Be clear. Yes, or no.

[mburbank]

"?!?!?!?!?"

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

The question really is, why do you keep attributing the aggression to the victims of this same movement? Why are you arguing that a civil war of ideologically opposed groups can be imposed on "the Iraqis" and think it's a-ok as long as you're discussing anti-US sentiment? As if that's what the insurgency is strictly about. If it fits your own anti-Government agenda, then you think it's okay to run with it.

I apologize for the lack of a proper response here, but between the lines where you state that I am arguing things that I am NOT trying to argue and the lines where I just don't understand what the hell you're trying to say, I'm at a loss. Seriously. Sorry.

Originally Posted by you

So I think this is you arguing that the insurgency in all varieties does in fact represent the interests of Iraqi people? Be clear. Yes, or no.

[/qoute]

I'm glad you're actually asking me to clarify a point that you question. Communication over the internet is a clumsy art at best.

The answer is "no" - as we're clear on the distinction between "the Iraqi people" and "some Iraqi people". I've said that several times now. I only objected to the implication that the insurgency either only represents the interests of Iraqis or else it is exclusively foreign interests. As you quite clearly stated after my objection that it is a hell of a lot more compllcated than that. Hence my last objection that this has spiralled into a pointless semantics argument.

[Abcdxxxx]

Ziggy + cognitive dissonance sitting in a tree.

Don't worry. You sound smart. And contrarian. Really contrarian. Much improved from your "fuck you" days! Junior year's gonna be the best, huh guys?!

[mburbank]

Just out of curiosity, and I'm sure you've stated this before but somehow I missed it, abdcefg, but what are your bona fides on all things Middle Eastern? I've yet to discern in any post the faintest scintila of doubt or a caveat that maybe there are things going on you don't know.

Are you of Middle Eastern origin? Do you have a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies? Do you have friends in various governments? Are you perhaps, actually Paul Wolfowitz? How is it your opinion has become so so so so so so so so much more informed than anyone elses here?

I know how you know so much more than I do, as Kev pointed out to me, I am blinded by my Bush hatred. But how did you get so knowledgeable?

[Abcdxxxx]

There's a reason my posts are limited to certain subjects. You should try it! Look, talk about something you really know about. Talk from an informed opinion. Educate yourself. That way, this stuff isn't some abstract question akin to "what is art". That way you don't say stupid shit like "How can you seal off Iraq's borders? It's 2281miles of border" and expect an answer that's not patronizing.

[ziggytrix]

or to expect an answer at all...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

The USA and particularly the Bush presiencies are deeply emeshed with the Saudi Royal family. No conspiracy theory, just bidness.

And the implication here is what? Every president since FDR (with a few bumps in the road, like Truman) has at least seen the strategic value in staying tight with, if not fully embracing the Sa'ud family. The relationship hasn't been a give and take piggy bank like you'd like to think, and they were a valuable partner during the Cold War. To imply that all of this has to do with Bush family business ties is erronious and daffy.

Saudi Arabia obviously values our alliance. Whhile you may find the idea that might give us some leverare debatable, but I hardly think it's outlandish enough to warrant so many question marks.

You overestimate the leverage we have there. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia hasn't been strictly about oil consumption, but that's a big part of it. Well now there's a couple other big kids on the block, namely India and China. They are going to buy a shit ton of oil, and they probably don't care so much about the democratic makeup of the middle east. They are in fact the ones who are all about bidness. While America is starting to talk more seriously about energy alternatives, These countries are talking crude, baby. If you want to understand why it has been slow-going in Saudi Arabia, don't look West, look East.

They LIKE buying our weapons. we make the best ones. They want them. What if we tied the sales of those weapons systems to changes in their text books and support of 'charities'? It might not work, but it could be funny to try.

What makes you believe this hasn't happened? Why is the Saudi foreign minister in friggin Houston this week talking about SA being a democracy within ten years? Condi (and before her Powell) have been working overtime in the middle east.

Also, this goes back to the previous point. Those weapons? They're going to get them. So would you rather we keep selling them and maintain that leverage, or do we curse them out and watch them walk? How "realpolitik" would that be, Mr. Kissinger?

Instead our foreign policy is to pretend the Saudi Royal family has nothing at al to do with state sponsored terrorism.

This an absolute fallacy. Again, the fact that a Saudi prince was at the US-Arab Economic forum talking about building a better democracy than America's is worth noting. You seem to think America hasn't done a thing to press Saudi reform, but uh hello, Iraq!!!!!???!!!/?/?!

I mean, this is a country that didn't officially ban SLAVERY until 1962. The mere fact that countries such as this one are even talking about such dramatic reforms is totally attributable to our pressure, primarily the invasion of Iraq. I'm amazed that you cant even see this, but then again, you've got those pesky Bush blinders.

The more alarming thing about Saudi Arabia's continuing spread of hate speech is that there's a market for it. If muslims all around the world didn't already believe this shit, the Saudi text books wouldn't be as much of a problem. And we're not just talking about the poor, frustrated, and uneducated. These texts, often omitting Israel from their maps, are used in the West too. Hell, one of them is a short drive away from me in Alexandria. So once again, the problem isn't just corrupt regimes, or poverty, or whatever. There's a pervasive problem throughout Islam, and that is our enemy. Stopping states that finance it is crucial, but not the whole war.

I'm not sure how posting the full statement changes anything. My objection was to your idea of 'liberals' and the implication that associtting the word 'Liberal' with something somehow automatically discredits it. Something I've noted a lot of 'chowderheads' are fond of doing.

I think you misunderstood me. Maybe it's due to my own lack of clarity, but I wasn't trying to insinuate that "liberal" is the dirty word. I consider myself one, so that would be pretty counter-productive. True or false-- do liberals refer to the WOT as a police matter? Keep your own position on it in mind.

You're right, theres no such thing as a police effort. There's no FBI, there's no CIA, there are no special forces, and if we ever acknowledge international law I'm sure that would vanish as well.

So is your argument that these resources aren't being utilized? If that's your argument, well you're wrong. Some of the more valuable aspects of the Patriot Act were to better connect these agencies so that they could share info and resources at the state & local level. If you think we've simply dropped bombs on two countries and declared "yahtzee!" you're sorely mistaken.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq. As I've said here numerous times, I'm more of a big stick, speak softly kind of guy. But we DID invade Iraq, and as abc has pointed out for you, the war on islamic terrorism is indeed now in Iraq. To abandon Iraq would be like handing a chaotic Afghanistan over tothe Taliban, or a chaotic Somalia over the muslim militias who want to stone rapists to death. Ifyou can't see the pattern, then you're not really paying attention.

But you seem more intent on having a told ya so foreign policy. The tenets of Max Burbank's toldyasoism is that no foreign policy can proceed unless the president is pure like a little girl in her Communion day dress. If you invade a country, the president better be right about why he did it, otherwise you can't do anything else. You must remain paralyzed by the told ya so, or else you look like a hypocrite. to practice toldyasoism all you have to do is compare every American action to something Christians did in the 16th Century, mention that the Americans killed Native Americans and stuff. It has the pomposity of Kevinism, but without the citations.

No, he said we should invade Iraq, he said we had no choice, and at best he was totally wrong about why and at worst he was lying. I know we don't have a time machine and we can't undo what we did, but while you say you don't like Bush et al, you think it's good we're their and what we've brought is an unquestionable improvement. Should we only 'improve' the nations we can get away with on account of their lack of holy sites? Personally, I think we've used up all our free invasion cards.

And under toldyasoism, if the president puffed up the reasons for invading a country, well then you can't have done anything good in Iraq. :/

Saddam was an enemy, and while you seem to think he was "contained", I think he was a monster whose people are better off without him and his murderous lot there. To say that there were ABSOLUTELY NO links to Al Qaeda and islamic extremism is intellectually dishonest. If nothing else, he was an opportunist. He encouraged terrorist acts against Israel, and wanted to use Islam as a means to control his populace. The guy thought he was friggin Saladin. There most certainly was contact between Al Qaeda agents and Iraqi Baathists in the late 90's, and Zarqawi himself managed to flow in and out of Iraq.

Iraq was a weak spot, and we took it out. The Pentagon made some early mistakes that have continued to haunt our troops, but the toppling of Saddam has put every other nation in the Middle East on notice. Hell, why do you think Iran rushed their nuke program? They looked at N. Korea, they knew they were on our shit list, and realized that they wanted security. Iran doesn't want to suffer Iraq's fate. I think you will see some "realpolitik" in Iran, you will see a carrot and stick deal eventually worked out, and hopefully you'll ultimately see reform in Iran.

And SO... we use sanctions, leverage, and police actions (which we are doing in Iran right now, so don't say there's no such thing).

See above.

And no, it does not bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. THAT's what the War on Terror looks like to me. Slow, dogged, unsatisfying, sometimes inaffective, not at all sexy country song patriotic. They keep their women in bags, they teeter on the edge of slavery with their guest worker program, they are totally not a democracy, and yet we have decided there are ways to fight terror without invading them. Now I think we should pressure them a lot more, hold them a lot more accountable, but we can do it without invading. I also think we could do it without inviting them to Crawford and Kennybunkport.

And we find ourselves in total agreement. The only problem is that I see the role theinvasion of iraq played in creating that pressure, and you can't.

North Korea's economy is totally relient upon foreign aid. The "slow, dogged" stuff isn't always effective, and doesn't necessarily stop countries from pursuing nuclear weapons if the technology is made available to them.

I think though you absolute certainty that these things are 'directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states. ' while certainly arguable, is something you take as a matter of faith. I would challenge you to support it without saying "Isn't it totally obvious??????"

You're kidding, right? Max, is it all a grand coinsidence these political reform discussions and movements that are happening in the Arab world are happening now? Why does all of this stuff just happen to be a product of a post-9/11 world? More importantly, why did Libya trip over themselves to at least give us the token gesture of giving up on nuclear weapons? Why is Pakistan, a nation with a high muslim population, bending to our wishes in the mountain region near the Afghan border? All of the current regime actions in the middle east today, be them good or bad, helpful or antagonistic, are a result of the United States.

I feel I've gone to great lengths to provide evidence for you, both anecdotal and quantified, to show you this. You on the other hand have never done this. Tell me Max, if not directly linked to the actions of the United States, what is causing it all? Any thoughts? I mean, I know one key tenet of toldyasoism is to focus on what the other is supposedly doing wrong, rather than what could be done right, but please enlighten me.

I'm not going to quote your whole next paragraph in the interests of space, but let me see if I can paraphrase it without sarcasm or jokes. W and company lied to us about the real reason for invading Iraq. The secret reason they chose Iraq was to topple a middle eastern country they thought they could bring democracy to.

Tell me if that's approximately what you are saying, and I'll get my huge bag of question marks ready. I don't want to waste them if that isn't what you are saying.

This is essentially what I'm saying, yes.

Because wether you believe it of me or not, a LOT of people who voted for W and believed in him don't like the war, don't think it's an "obvious, Exponential improvement in Iraq" and if they hate W now, it's because of the war.

I know, and that's more an indictment of the American people than it is of the president. Americans, as I have frequently lamented, love to blow shit up, but they hate to clean it up. Everbody likes to make a mess, but nobody likes to be the guy in the cleanup aisle (now, the cost, the hypocrisy of cutting taxes while at war, that's certainly worth the outrage).

Presidents do unpopular things. Bush isn't setting any precedent here. But history doesn't judge a president or a policy on 1 week, 1 month, or even 1 year. IMO, we will look back on this presidency, taking into account all of its problems and mistakes, and they will be judged by Iraq. I am of the opinion that it will be a pleasant judgement, but that's just me.

But I bet smarterer people with less raging hatreds than mine also might think, possibly, that we have not improved the lives of the Iraqi people. I bet some of them are good folks nd not just blind, liberal, Bush Haters.

Find me the respected scholar or policy analyist who says we've only made matters worse, or made NO improvements for the Iraqi people. I'd like to hear their thoughts, and heck, I'd love it if you brought something to the table here!

I just think expecting a think tank to tell you what living in Ira is like via statistics only says so much. I think for instance, the cable recently written by our own ambassador is also a valid picture.

Well sweet Jesus Max, you can't see it, but I'm throwing my hands up for you right now. I mean, my opinion is apparently unsubstantiated, the factually supported data from some think tank (one of the oldest and most highly respected in the country) means nothing, obviously the White House's opinion means nothing, obviously the opinions of the newly elected Iraqi PM mean nothing, etc. etc.

Apparently the only opinions worth listening to on Iraq are the ones that say everything is going wrong.

"Told ya so!"

How can you possibly know that in twenty years Iraq might not be a democracy (or some other form of decent government) without our intervention? Not every country in human history that has undergone progressive growth required an invasion and occupation.

Allow me to repeat myself. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Somalia. Look at Palestine. There'sa pattern here, Max. Where we allow Islamic tyranny to thirve, it most certainly will. I believe this was our mistake in the past. I believe we need to do something about it now, rather than just looking back at our dubious record in Afghanistan, Iraq/Iran, and the rest of the Middle East, and saying "told ya so!".

How about if Iraq spirals into civil war, drags neighboring countries in and is ground zero for your Great War?

This won't happen if we fight this war. I see this more likely to happen were we to withdraw. I see iraq becoming a carte blanche for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and every petty thug and Islamic radical who wants a piece of the pie.

And Max, if we dokeep at this war, and that STILL happens, I'll invite youto say "I told ya so!"

Almost, Kev? I'm not a soul peerer, but I'd say you're treating that 'almost' line like a runner itching to steal Second.

Perhaps you missed my point. I'm starting to feel like Charlie Brown and Preechr.

My point was that some nations haven't gotten on board with this war to the extent we have. I pity the small time Islamic thug who messes with Russia or China. They won't be getting Halal food and prayer time in those prisons. Heck, look at how France of all nations has clamped down on their extremists.

My point was that Radical Islam wouldn't stand a chance if the sleeping giants in the East and Europe woke up. I think extremists counton the liberal guilt of the European nations, and it plays a partin fostering great degrees of intolerance in presumably liberal and free nations.

Tell me, if the Great War comes, will you fight in it, or would you prefer to be one of those guys in suits with other priorities?

Well, I look pretty good in a nice tie.

I think your point is to bait me, but whatever. If it came down to a draft, I most certainly would fight. However the best military in the world is made of voluntary citizens, and that's one reason we have the finest military inthe world.

I myself would really like to see us work harder on NOT having that war. I know, I'm an isolationist and the only way I can prove I'm not is to kill some people.

I think we are working to avoid tragedy now. But part of that will include not having such shitty regimes in the Middle East.


[qote]You're off in La-La land dreaming about all the good shit we could do if we had a dream government. I'm angry about the things our current government is fucking up, and I think being concerned about those fuck ups could be constructive in getting a better administration.[/quote]

I'm glad you're concerned aboutyour next president, it's of personal interest to me too. But frankly, I'm more interested in winning a war and seeing out our mission in iraq.

I hope the next president (hopefully President Warner) continues this fight, but does more here at home to create consistent American sacrifice both here and abroad. We shouldn't be watching our men and women dying on the evening news and think that's how to win.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

or to expect an answer at all...

Iraq's borders were sealed tight under Saddam.
He had 240 border guard stations and 640 border guards.
The Iran border was guarded on foot.
They reported to several ministries.
If you walked even near a mountain zone region like Sulayminah, you were in breach.

The Iran-Iraq border is 800 miles.
The Syrian border is about 376 miles.
The other 4 countries Iraq shares a border with are participatory allies so that cuts your 2281 mile border equation in half.
That's assuming the US had a plan for border security at all, and they didn't.

Unlike our Southern Border, there are no cities right against the border. That comparison is retarded.

[ziggytrix]

Since Saudi Arbia is officially our ally, we can just ignore the Saudi/Iraq border in terms of security? I don't think I can agree with that.

Nor can I agree that the sort of border infiltration that terrorists attempt was wholly prevented under Saddam's regime.

I am aware that since September 2004 the US in concert with Iraqi trainees have been working on border security (source). A full year later, Zarqawi loyalists took over Qaim (source). So again, I don't really agree with your implication that sealing Iraq's border is a simple task, but I do at least agree that it could have been worked on sooner. I just don't think it would have had as major an impact on the insurgency as you seem to, though I'm sure I could be wrong.

Anyway, thank you for finally answering the question.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Nor can I agree that the sort of border infiltration that terrorists attempt was wholly prevented under Saddam's regime.

Well there you go again. Why? It was nearly impossible to make sanctioned travel between borders let alone an "infiltration" these borders. Find a source that says otherwise. Saddam's borders were most definetly capped tight. Terrorists never "infilitrated" Saddam's borders, they were invited.

It's not unreasonable to expect allied states like Saudi Arabia to police their borders or at least assist with a solid plan - the truth is we didn't even have one, and that's the issue. We added 18,000 border guards in 2004, and the borders still aren't on lockdown.

www.usip.org/library/oh/sops/iraq/sec/hines.pdf

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

Well there you go again. Why?

Well, for starters, you say Saddam had 640 guards as opposed to our 18,000 - now maybe I'm being naive, but I think our guys are a little better equipped, and definitely more loyal (Hines certainly seems very disparaging of them in the article you linked), and yet we don't have the borders locked down.

Corruption seems to run rampant in dictatorships. I'm betting under Saddam, with the right money greasing the right palms, or telling the right lies to the the right people, smuggling would be ridiculously easy. Do you think Saddam knew about every single illicit deal going across his borders? Especially with seperate agencies for customs and for border police? I can't even conceive it, though I bet Saddam thought it was all under control, as long as the money kept coming in.

It would seem to me, that what has happened is that our invasion has created new destinations for existing black markets. Now that Saddam isn't the number one buyer, we've got all these different actors. And it's certainly a lot more chaotic, but I just can't believe the border is actually more permeable under (however many there alredy were plus) 18,000 American/Iraqi guards than under 640 of Saddam's guards.

That is what we're talking about here right? Sealing the border against smuggling of money and arms, right? I suppose that deserves some clarification. If we're talking about stopping fighters from crossing the border, then I would like to ask you one more time if you think the 5-10% figure is incorrect when talking about the foreign makeup of the insurgency? I've heard that figure several times, and have yet to hear it actively disputed, but then I'm not caiming to be an expert on the Mideast.

[Abcdxxxx]

Huh?

Yeah so 18,000 poorly trained border guards still can't do the job which was accomplished by 600 of Saddam's loyalist. That's because only a couple hundred of our 18,000 had gone through training by mid-2004. I don't know what the current figure is.

Irregardless, Saddam had his borders locked down. You haven't proven otherwise, or proven that a nation can not control a border. If he allowed corruption, it's because he allowed it. Iraq's borders were probably the most solid in the region. Even areas that were weaker, like the Kurd-Turk border, only increased in tension when the borders became vulnerable under occupation.

For the last time, the percentage of foriegn fighters means little. Who trained them? Where do they take their cues from? Who arms them? Who finances them? Who and what are they fighting for?

[mburbank]

"There's a reason my posts are limited to certain subjects. You should try it! Look, talk about something you really know about. Talk from an informed opinion. Educate yourself. That way, this stuff isn't some abstract question akin to "what is art". That way you don't say stupid shit like "How can you seal off Iraq's borders? It's 2281miles of border" and expect an answer that's not patronizing."

That would be a swell answer had my question been "Are you informed on the middle east?". It wasn't, though.

My question was, what's your background. School? Proffession? Hobby? Past residence? I want to know what you've done in your life that makes you so certain about all all things middle easte4rn, and I'm being totally serious here, not flippant.

There's nothing in life I feel as confident as you seem on this subject, and while I'm sure you'll see that as some sort of admission of failure or a carachter, you make me curious.

--

Kevin, cannot read so much right now. One question. Do you think the family Bush and the family Saud are not a degree or two more emeshed than the family of any admnistration has eevr been before? And do you really see blowing the shit out of the country of origin of none of the hijackers as a motivator to the country that sent most of them? Cause I see it as kind of an indication that they get a free pass. "Don't you EVER mess with us again, or we'll... get... some other guy that... you had a beef with too. So watch it!"

[Abcdxxxx]

edit: nevermind.

[mburbank]

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over your editting.

[Ant10708]

Who cares that the hijackers were mostly Saudis. That doesn't mean the country was complicit. Not that Iraq was either but we shouldn't attack Saudi Arabia because thats where the hijackers were born.