Can we finally admit that this a fucking full-blown civil war?

Why do the Democrats think that they can achieve their goal of defeat in Iraq just by clapping harder at every little setback?

AMARA FALLS TO THE INSURGENCY

Bad news Kevin. But more cities will fall to the terrorists if we withdraw troops from Iraq as liberals like you and Michael Moore want us to. The only way we can prevent more Amaras is to stay the course set out by George W Bush so that the terrorists don't take over Iraq and make it a base for Al-Qaeda and other Islamofascists like the terrorists are doing in Amara.

Kevin, please. ban that asshole.

Stay the course! And get those Defeatocrats out of the Iraqi Army! Victory is around the corner!

(where 'asshole' = Thomas1)

--

What's the next step?

declare victory and go home.

This is enemy propaganda. Iraq is a peaceful, democratic Republic, in which the rule of law has been established. The shopping malls are excellent, and many schools have been painted. There is no insurgency. Al-Sadr does not exist.

Our strategy is to win, and to do that we must stay the course until either the insurgency or Charlie is in its last throes.

Way to go, Kevin! You've caused another gain for the terrorists!

God, you America-hating LIEberals will stop at nothing!

"Neck deep in the big muddy... and the big fool said to go on."

For those not old enough to remember, this was an early-60's song that commemerated the deaths of soldiers marched into the Mississippi river by an ignorant, bull-headed commander.

It is every bit as relevant today as it was 40 years ago. At some point, one [should] get smart enough to turn around.

The situation is simple enough. The Iraqi people don't want us there. The more we push on, the deeper it gets.

The inevitibility of the majority enforcing their political will, through force if necessary, has arrived. No one should be surprised.

I'm waiting for the all-knowing Bush administration, who led us so boldly and courageously into this disaster, and who vilified anyone who even asked a reasonable question about it as traitors and appeasers, to tell us what the next step is.

I'm not sure I would believe them, given their truly awful track record to date, but at least it's their responsibility to answer the question.

Strawman arguments from supporters of the war about "supporters of defeat", etc., are completely beside the point, except insofar as they indicate that they're completely out of ideas -- and out of excuses for their failure.

They won't even Moktada al-Sadr? The heathens!

What's the next step?

Export all of America's republicans to Iraq.
Give them combat boots, camo, ammunition, and a rifle.

This will solve two problems at once:

1) Enrich America's gene pool by subtraction.
2) Puts all the vested parties together in one bix sand box where they can make whoopy.

Let's see if posting some sense here has any effect whatsoever:

Regarding al-Sadr losing control of the Mahdi Army: It's not a matter of being "too moderate and timid". It's just that in an undisciplined militia, the lure of seizing control over territory and assets will overpower any vestige of central control. It's not that there's some philosophical or strategic dispute between al-Sadr and his militia; it's just that they're out of control and looking to get some.

They won't even listen to Muktata.

All is lost.

Can we finally admit that this a fucking full-blown civil war?

These are some last throes, all right...

"Regardless, I have no problem fighting the terrorists over there, rather than in our streets."

Cf. US Army rifleman, 1969:

"We have to fight the Communists over here so we don't end up fighting them in San Diego."

Funny how we lost Vietnam, and yet somehow those VC never did show up to conquer California. Could there be some strategic error in this way of thinking?

If conservatives want to understand liberals (of course they don't, at least not the trolls on this forum, but let's just say they did), they need to understand this:

We don't want Iraqi towns to fall to the insurgency. We do want the Bush administration to understand that Iraq is so fucked-up that al-Sadr doesn't even have control over his own army. We do want the adminstration to understand that you can't win out of a situation like that, because most of the time you don't even know who the damn enemy is.

We'd also like it if the president accepted some responsibility for making Iraq that fucked-up, and perhaps developing a plan that goes deeper than bumper-sticker catchphrases, but we don't really expect those to happen.

What really troubles me is that Kevin seems to have completely lost control of his comment section. It's been overrun by insurgents.

It's time to pull out all the stops and deploy America's fiercest warriors. Mr. President, I urge you to immediately airdrop Bill "On to Baghdad/Damascus/Tehran" Kristol and Charles "The Human Panzer" Krauthammer into Amara!

The Repugs have lost to the terrorists: they have destabilized another country for AlQuaeda; they have been the most sucessful recruiter AlQuaeda has ever had; they have separated America from the mainstream world; they have shown the hypocrisy of American human rights; they have made America change its fundamental governing philosophy; they have shown that it is possible to beat the mightiest military in the world. Who knows, maybe the White House is the sleeper cell that they have been warning about.

They won't even listen to Muktata. / All is lost.

yup.

of course, this was completely predictable, and predicted.

Aw hell..... Koreyel beat me to it, and his plan is more comprehensive.

Speaking of "the insurgency" is misleading, as it makes it sound a like single revolutionary force. There are two main "insurgencies" -- Sunni and Shia. They are fighting each other, as well as the central government and coalition troops.

The same about references to "the Iraqis". There are no Iraqis any more -- only Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. Sticking to the old terms makes it harder to follow events.

I have a question. How are all those terrorists we want to fight there rather than here going to get here? United?

Funny how we lost Vietnam, and yet somehow those VC never did show up to conquer California. Could there be some strategic error in this way of thinking?

You obviously haven't kept up on your BizarroWorld History. The VC only pretended to disappear after Tet. In fact, they were only lulling us into a false sense of security, while such carefully cultivated moles as Jane Fonda and John Kerry sapped our will and morals, and made us all long for cultural suicide.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go answer the door for the neighborhood Al Qaeda fundraisers. After I give them my ATM card and PIN, they're going to behead me -- which, as a self-hating liberal, I welcome, natch. Ta ta!

Buford wrote: "Neck deep in the big muddy... and the big fool said to go on." For those not old enough to remember, this was an early-60's song that commemerated the deaths of soldiers marched into the Mississippi river by an ignorant, bull-headed commander.

Actually it was a late sixties song by Pete Seeger, and the story it told of troops "back in 1942 ... on maneuver in Louisiana one night by the light of the moon" was fictional, and a metaphor for America "neck deep in the Big Muddy" of Vietnam. Seeger performed it live on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour TV show -- which was later cancelled by its network for airing politically controversial material.

Of course Kevin forgot to link to updates to the story, in which we discover that the upshot of all this was about 25 people killed and the Mahdi "army" withdrawing from the city.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102000244.html

In other words, Amar did not fall to the insurgency. Instead, between 200 and 300 Mahdi fighters attacked a police headquarters and 2 polic stations after a Mahdi leader was arrested. They then battled with the police, killing 10 while losing 15 of their own with 90 additional Mahdi army personnel wounded (that's a 33% casualty rate by the way) before leaving the city.

None of this of course offers much reassurance with regard to how things are going in Iraq. But what liberals need to understand, to borrow from mmy, is that conservatives are perfectly willing to discuss what is going on in Iraq but will insist that liberal present a fair accounting of the event of the day.

Kevin, in this case, did not.

In other words, Amar did not fall to the insurgency.

actually, it did.

from the article you linked to:

The takeover ended, according to Maj. Charlie Burbribge, a British military spokesman, "when Moqtada al-Sadr told them to stop.

that they gave it up willingly doesn't mean they didn't take it over in the first place.

never enough blood for thomas

The British are in their last throes.

Funny how we lost Vietnam, and yet somehow those VC never did show up to conquer California. Could there be some strategic error in this way of thinking?

Apparently you've never been to Orange Country. Vietnamese restaurants as far as the eye can see....

Cleek,

They took over 2 police stations and a police headquarters and ran amok in the street for the better part of a day, losing 1/3 their force, and ultimately withdrawing by evening.

Do you really believe this constitutes losing a city to the insurgency?

hey, can y'all please, please stop responding to Charlie/Thomas? Isn't it fucking obvious that he has a pathetic need for attention, and that you're just giving it to him? Why fall for the same game every damn time?

frustrated, you're right. suffice to say, bush vows no withdrawal while he's president. only dems disagree. vote accordingly

Apparently you've never been to Orange Country. Vietnamese restaurants as far as the eye can see....

That's pretty good. I have been down Jamboree lately. (My sister who used to live in the western suburbs of Chicago now lives in Orange.)

Thomas: Try to find out from the White House how long a throe lasts.

"Q Well, I'm just wondering what the metric is for measuring the defeat of the insurgency.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can go back and look at the Vice President's remarks. I think he talked about it.

Q Yes. Is there any idea how long a last throe lasts for?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050616-5.html

Apparently you've never been to Orange Country. Vietnamese restaurants as far as the eye can see....

Yeah, but that's probably more like (in terms of military factions from that war) the ARVN coming to California than the VC.

They took over 2 police stations and a police headquarters and ran amok in the street for the better part of a day, losing 1/3 their force, and ultimately withdrawing by evening.Do you really believe this constitutes losing a city to the insurgency?

Do you really believe that the fact that a militia was able to take over 2 police stations and a police headquarters and run amok in the street for the better part of a day indicates that we have any kind of control over there?

Do you really believe that the fact that a militia was able to take over 2 police stations and a police headquarters and run amok in the street for the better part of a day indicates that we have any kind of control over there?

Perfectly put. You are a primo smartass, but god damnit you have an eye for clarity and an ability to slice through the bullshit. Brava, brava, bravisima.

they think the U.S. military lost every battle in Vietnam too

During the Paris Peace Talks an American general was boasting to the North Vietnamese General Giap about how US forces beat him every pitched battle and didn't lose any major combat level engagement.

Giap responded "That is true. It is also irrelevant."

Do you really believe this constitutes losing a city to the insurgency?

having the existing authority violently replaced with an outside force is pretty much the definition of "losing a city".

you know... exactly the same way Saddam lost Bagdhad.

Yeah, but that's probably more like (in terms of military factions from that war) the ARVN coming to California than the VC.

Oh, Chris. That's exactly what the VC want you to think....and then, one day....BAM!

Oh, Chris. That's exactly what the VC want you to think....and then, one day....BAM!

Aaannndd...He's back.

Why thank you, Global. Very nice of you.

Props earned are props given. (bowing)

Isn't this more about the British gving up their base and thus "control" of the city?

Stefan:

"Do you really believe that the fact that a militia was able to take over 2 police stations and a police headquarters and run amok in the street for the better part of a day indicates that we have any kind of control over there?"

Of course the fact that the Mahdi Army was able to force away the police is a sign that Iraqi security folks are not able (or willing) to effectively execute their responsibilities. Of course this is bad news with regard to the situation in Amara. I made absolutely no claims to the contrary.

And the fact that the police and other security forces were able to fight back and give as good (better actually) than they got and that at the end of the day the Mahdi militiamen had withdrawn does tell us that, in fact, the Iraq government has some level of control over there.

In any event, having a militia run amok for a day is not the same as claiming the city fell to the insurgency. It's the difference between a reasonable assessment of the situation and meaningless hyperbole.

Hack said:
It's the difference between a reasonable assessment of the situation and meaningless hyperbole.

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

Two things: (1) its not hyperbole; (2) did you apply the same "hyperbole" standard to the Administration's WMD, al Queda linked to Iraq claims?

Yes or No asshat.

Bottomline: you are not part of the debate anymore because frankly you and your ilk have not gotten ONE SINGLE THING RIGHT in the past 3 years with respect to Iraq (or anything else really).

You are irrelevant.

It's the difference between a reasonable assessment of the situation and meaningless hyperbole.

Reasonable assessments of the situation such as, oh, I don't know, "Mission Accomplished," "Bring 'em on," "we've turned a corner," "the insurgency is in its last throes," "cut 'n run" or "stay the course"?

Cleek,

They took over 2 police stations and a police headquarters and ran amok in the street for the better part of a day, losing 1/3 their force, and ultimately withdrawing by evening.
http://rred.info/sitemap.htm
Do you really believe this constitutes losing a city to the insurgency?

Do you really believe this constitutes losing a city to the insurgency?

In a word: Yes.

And the fact that the police and other security forces were able to fight back and give as good (better actually) than they got and that at the end of the day the Mahdi militiamen had withdrawn does tell us that, in fact, the Iraq government has some level of control over there.

Hacksaw circa 1968: And the fact that the police and other security forces were able to fight back and give as good (better actually) than they got and that at the end of the day VC withdrew does tell us that, in fact, the Saigon government has some level of control over there....

Kevin. C'mon. The mother fucker is panhandling on the threads and all but admits he's a spammer. Get the chrome-and-glass boys at Monthly headquarters to hire a fucking webmaster.

You have a nice blog here with intelligent commentary by people who have a clue. Get rid of this clown.

And no, I'm not paying your fucking bribe you asshole.

Do you really believe this constitutes losing a city to the insurgency?

In the same sense that our temporary displacement of insurgents in the massive campaign against Fallujah constitutes taking a city from the insurgency? Clearly yes. In any more concrete sense? Perhaps not.

Ultimately, though, time is not on the side of a foreign occupier or a domestic regime that relies on a foreign occupier for its survival: such a regime must swiftly establish a secure domestic base of support, or opposition to it will continue to grow until it collapses entirely. What this further demonstrates (beyond any quibbling over whether it technically amounts to "losing" a city) is that the present Iraqi regime, with US support, is failing to make the kind of progress that is the only way it can hope to survive. The US may be able to give the regime the ability to continue to kill people and remain nominally in place for an extended duration, but if its not making progress at building legitimacy and support among the populace, its never going to be an effective government with meaningful control over the country, it'll just remain another armed faction in a never-ending power struggle.

The point is the British are leaving, we are ceding territory.

The madhi army doesn't HAVE to fight anyone now, they can walk in at any time. It's a chunk of real estate we no longer control.

Will al Anbar be next? Just curious. Are we about to pull back to Baghdad and concentrate on propping up the government that can't wait to climb in bed with Iran?

in fact, the Iraq government has some level of control over there.

From "Mission Accomplished" to "some level of control" in just three and a half short years.

It's been a hell of a ride, ladies and gentlemen. A hell of a ride....

Dude. You are on it today. I'll just second everything you say today right now.

IRAQ: GREATEST CLUSTER FUCK SINCE 4 JULY, 1943.

al Sadr is not anti-American, he is anti-occupation. If we didn't have 140,000 troops in his country killing his people he wouldn't give a second thought to the US

Are we about to pull back to Baghdad and concentrate on propping up the government that can't wait to climb in bed with Iran?

Heck, I can see this comment on Political Animal sometime in 2007:

They took over 2 US Army checkpoints and a the US Embassy and ran amok in the street for the better part of a day, losing 1/3 their force, and ultimately withdrawing by evening. Do you really believe this constitutes losing the Green Zone to the insurgency?

And the fact that the US Army and Iraqi security forces were able to fight back and give as good (better actually) than they got and that at the end of the day the insugent militiamen had withdrawn does tell us that, in fact, we do have some level of control over there.

Did ya ever notice how Iraq is starting to resemble Somalia circa 1992? Except with a lot more people and all that sweet, sweet, crude...

Next up, humanitarian shipments of food to alleviate the mass starvation come under attack by Technicals....

Osama must be so proud that his business partner Dubya has succeeded so well in implementing his master plan....

As for those Vietnamese restaurants, they were not VC - Ky and his gang came over - Voted heavily for B-l Bomber Dornan, until Sanchez shot the poor boy down in flames.
Speaking of Sanchez, did you see the latest dustup, whereby a Publican opponent who happens to be from South Vietnam, sent out letters to Hispanics in the district saying that if they voted they could be arrested and deported? The local Publican Party is asking him to step aside.

Probably learned those dirty tricks from reading VC nightmare stories.

benjoya, circa 1945: "Never enough blood for Truman" -- oh no, that's right, when a Democrat President drops a nuke and kills hundreds of thousands, there's a ticker-tape parade in Times Square.

Posted by: Thomas1

thomas1 objectively pro-facist.

Someone help! I'm working with a nam vet who sez that Kerry wrote his own medals. He thinks that kerry slandered all Nam vets with his post-service comments. I've got 3 more days to work with this former nam vet enlisted marine who, by the way, thinks GW bush sucks. Gimme something else to work with please....Thomas shut the fuck up!

All of you posting about the Sadr Militia must be delusional.

Why, after the closing of Sadr's newspapers a couple of years back, Fred Barnes said on Britt Hume Comedy Hour that this was great because it force Sadr's forces out and they would be crushed in three days.
A few months later in November of that year, ye olde Conspiracy Nut posted that the Sadr Militias were history.

Fred and CN wrong? I think not!

benjoya, circa 1945: "Never enough blood for Truman" -- oh no, that's right, when a Democrat President drops a nuke and kills hundreds of thousands, there's a ticker-tape parade in Times Square.
Posted by: Thomas1

Careful, ThomASS, your slip is showing. If you want to look at those who support Truman's actions, you may want to take a look at your real party - the GOP. Most liberals (myself included) abhor Truman's decision, but you know what, dumbass, we weren't around then to do anything about it.

But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and call for nuking entire Iraqi villages. Hell 650,000 dead Iraqi's isn't enough. You truly are an asshole.

Oh, by the way, I asked this former marine if he thought that Murtha's comments are hurting the troops in Iraq and you know what he said? Who's Murtha? Shit, I need guidance...now.

...is that conservatives are perfectly willing to discuss what is going on in Iraq but will insist that liberal present a fair accounting of the event of the day.

How's the weather on your planet?

If we had known in 2004 that Iraq would be this bad, do you really think George Bush would be President right now? Do you think he would have even been renominated in 2004 if your side knew he was going to blow this one? Granted, hindsight is 20/20, but more than enough people were fully aware of the dangers of the Iraq insurgency, even in the fall of 2003 we knew these were not 'dead-enders' but a movement that was going to grind it out. Well, three years later, this is where the meatgrinder has landed us.

He's got to cut and run because they're not going to draft 1.5 million men to go fight in Iraq and, by necessity, Iran. If you haven't been paying attention, wingnuts, the Iranians have been operating freely in southern Iraq.

I really want our little friends on the other side of the aisle to answer that supposition honestly. Because if turns out that Bush is the first Republican to lose a war, all bets are off. I guarantee you, the number of Republicans who come out of the woodwork with their knives out to say that they never trusted Bush or believed Bush or liked Bush will vastly outnumber what few are still defending this policy.

Can't you clowns understand a holding patter when you see it? Your man is going to cut and run on Iraq and leave a worse mess than he found in 2003. And no amount of bleating about how Democrats voted for the war matters anymore--it was his decision. He's the decider after all.

And look what he decided to do.

The bold knight of reason tops the hill, lance glinting in the sun.

And look what he decided to do.

Well said, Rider. Majority or not, Repubs will be running from W as fast and as far as they can. It will be ugly.

Did you take that lance to BG,RS yet? There is a new trolly-troll over there who needs to meet you.

Pale- I think its going to be more like "fuck everyone and run". Shame on you mr. bush.

At least the Eye of Mordor is now being drawn to Amara and not to the United States, giving the Hobbits of our armed forces time to climb up Mount Doom.

Yes, Global Citizen, and he is still fighting for truth, justice and the God given right to sweep fair maidens off their feet.

In any event, having a militia run amok for a day is not the same as claiming the city fell to the insurgency. It's the difference between a reasonable assessment of the situation and meaningless hyperbole.

This is your delusional wingnut at his or her best--a "reasonable" assessment of having a force of 800 guerillas take over an Iraqi city means that the enemy--in this case, the insurgency--has decided to form battalions and start operating like a real military.

That's your clusterfuck situation, right there.

Starting in 2003, sniping attacks and small IEDs were used against our troops. One to three man teams of insurgents would stage an attack and flee immediately. These were small and ineffective.

Starting in 2004, the insurgency began to grow. They started using bigger IEDs against the Bradleys that were used when Humvees and LMTV trucks were decidedly too vulnerable. This involved slightly larger groups of insurgents. Mortar rounds have fallen on US troops for years and inflicted many casualties, and the attacks began to grow in intensity. You have your insurgents who plant IEDs and your insurgents who specialize and mount attacks with rockets or mortars or anything they can get their hands on at this point.

From the end of 2004 - Fallujah - and through to the elections, the insurgency operated in platoons, even small companies, as they began to have firefights with US troops and inflict more and more casualties. 2005 was bad but not as bad as 2006 has been in that regard.

Shoulder-fired SAMS were used against our air cover, changing the rules on us and exposing our troops to close-in fighting that mitigated any advantage having air cover would have. IEDs became severe enough to throw Bradley fighting vehicles into the air. Humvees were shredded. When the first Stryker vehicles arrived, we began to have some traction. But like any other insurgency we have failed to understand, they just changed their tactics and kept fighting. Why? Is it some sort of Islamic bullshit reason? No, it's been money since day one. Money pours in, buying the cars for the car bombs and buying the fighters and buying everything they use against us. We have never figured out that it's all driven by money--even when we were throwing bags of cash around for all to see and for all to shove in their pants, we never figured that part of it out.

Car bombs have always been devastating, especially when turned against the populace. If the Americans were too buttoned up to attack, just attack the people anywhere they congregate. This year - 2006 - has been the year that the streets have run red with blood. Snipers attack our troops and inflict casualties with sophisticated sniper rifles imported from overseas.

So it went from one to three man groups to battalions in three years.

Yeah, once again. Look what your President decided to do. Was it worth it?

Here is the Times piece with the subscription wall defeated.

Because if turns out that Bush is the first Republican to lose a war, all bets are off.

Ummm...Nixon and Ford? We didn't exactly win Vietnam. And Eisenhower can at best be credited with a tie for Korea.

In general Republican Presidents are best at winning wars against opponents who can't or won't fight back very well (Spain, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War). Once they start shooting back, well, stout Republican hearts begin to quail...

In any case, if the insurgents do manage to start taking cities we can just nuke them.

In any case, if the insurgents do manage to start taking cities we can just nuke them.

I know a little more about the prospect of Nuclear war than most people. I hope you are fucking joking.

Pale Rider - can I quote you? It's ready to go. Credit given where credit due.

Stefan,

You're right and then you're not right.

Korea has kind of fallen out of the American political consciousness and Vietnam will always be Johnson's fault.

Logically, you are absolutely correct, but public perception is never logical. There are still far too many old, fat white guys who never went to war who lay Vietnam at Johnson's feet, and that's posed a problem for Democrats like Carter and Clinton who have tried to use the US military.

For some reason, the rest of them get a pass. Will Bush get a pass? I don't think so. Even if Victor Davis Hanson tries to write it, the bottom line will be, Bush never committed enough men to the fight because of domestic political manuevering to hold on to power.

Pale Rider - can I quote you? It's ready to go. Credit given where credit due.

Are you sure? I'm kind of an asshole.

Stefan,

By extension, logically, the Tet offensive was a US victory because it killed out thousands of experienced Viet Cong guerillas and their leaders; in the American public conscious, it was a defeat because it revealed that the Johnson was a bald-faced liar.

That's all I'm saying - otherwise, no beef with you and please remember, I'm kind of an asshole.

No, kids. It's true.

Would I lie to you?

It's going up in three minutes if you don't say no...:)

I thought the Republicans stood up quite well against the Duchy of Fenwick.

And in further news today, Tony Snow reports that Lt Col Custer is at the bottom of a hill somewhere in Montana, quietly reassesing his position which is done, as Tony says, quite frequently.

Pale: It was worth it if your an upper level halliburton money munching asshole. You are on a roll, don't stop!

In any event, having a militia run amok for a day is not the same as claiming the city fell to the insurgency.

Actually, as Stefan pointed out, it's pretty much the textbook definition.

It's the difference between a reasonable assessment of the situation and meaningless hyperbole.

No, "meaningless hyperbole" and an unreasonable assessment of the situation is citing the fact that the force voluntarily withdrew -- retaining at least 2/3 of its effective force by the authorities' numbers, which are likely suspect as the authorities could be motivated too inflate them -- but remaining in the area to attack again as they please as implication of some sort of defeat of the insurgency.

The bottom line is, the insurgents enjoy 100% of the initiative in Iraq, the central government has almost no control, and the US controls nothing beyond rifleshot of its troops.

If you don't recognize that means the US has failed, you're beyond any "reasonable assessment of the situation."

In general Republican Presidents are best at winning wars against opponents who can't or won't fight back very well (Spain, Grenada, Panama, the Gulf War). Once they start shooting back, well, stout Republican hearts begin to quail...

To avoid an almost-inevitable response, here, one should note that, like most comments about the modern parties, this really only applies to the parties from WWII on. Prior to that, you can find examples (Lincoln comes to mind) of Republicans that had no problems fighting wars against resistance.

Rep Peter King (R-NY) will be flying in to perform the coin toss at tonight's heated rivalry between Baghdad Central and the Sadr's Raiders of Baghdad East - As King said, "Heck, it will be a lot safer for me here than up in the Bronx."
The Baghdad Interscholastic American Football League has had it's share of troubles - Lots of rebuilding efforts, especially for Bishop Ward and Jesuit Central - a few stadiums in a need of some repair.
However, some of the kids are real talents - That bombthrowing QB over at East is coveted by Florida State - Ali A is a heckuva running back at Central - Really learned his Gale Sayers ways dodging IEDs. Texas and USC really like him.
Problem is lack of security - With not enough American Forces to fill security needs, the game between Baghdad South and the Sunni Loonies of Baghdad West will be left to a local neighborhood watchout group.
Oh, though the Central game opened with Central favored by six, a sudden flow of money has now placed Sadr's East up by one. The South and West game has been taken off the board.
Peter King has requested that the usual bonfire burning of Bush's picture by the East fans be suspended at least for tonight's game.

Bishop Ward and Jesuit...

Leave my Cyclones out of this!

Global,

Went to a great party with Cyclones after being beaten in a football game by their team. Will always remember that night whenever I hear the old song, "We will have these moments to remember" - That record was played over and over that night. Fine school!

I say it's better to lose cities to the insurgency over there, so that we don't have to lose them over here.

My son was the varsity soccer captain there his junior and senior years. My daughter was the president of the National Honor Society there her final two years, and now holds a math degree from KU. The youngest also graduated from there. She is an accomplished young lass herself. She turned 20 yesterday, already has her bachelors in nursing and is in a masters practitioners program. Bishop Ward is indeed a fine, fine school. And why I keep sticking my nose into state schoolboard contests in Kansas even though I moved to MO in Aug. 01.

Globe,

I checked your site. You have, what, one troll post? And you and five others killed it off?

You guys are fine. I can go back in my hole now.

Ah c'mon. He really, really needs to meet you. Pretty please?

posted again: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6585&Itemid=30

another peaceful pilgrimmage to Najaf by hundreds of thousands, down about paragraph 8.

Whatever else one might write, the situation in Iraq certainly is not simplifying.

another peaceful pilgrimmage to Najaf by hundreds of thousands, down about paragraph 8.

They're not even trying anymore, are they?

But hey, I'm sure the line "your child died in Iraq so there could be another peaceful pilgrimage to Najaf by pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalists" is gonna be a real vote-getter next month....

Najaf, you say -

Boys, reset the coordinates. No, forget about Dresden - We already did that.

Oh lovely, I've got someone using my name.

Stefan, you wrote: Reasonable assessments of the situation such as, oh, I don't know, "Mission Accomplished," "Bring 'em on," "we've turned a corner," "the insurgency is in its last throes," "cut 'n run" or "stay the course"?

It's nice I'm sure to change the subject and go back to attacking the administration, but it does nothing with regard to the accuracy of what Kevin claimed.

cm, you wrote "What this further demonstrates (beyond any quibbling over whether it technically amounts to "losing" a city) is that the present Iraqi regime, with US support, is failing to make the kind of progress that is the only way it can hope to survive" and I think that is a very fair way of putting it.

My only disagreement is that when people proclaim "Amara falls to the insurgency", their hyperbole (yeah that IS what this is) distracts us from the far more important question of what's going on. It's not merely a quibble over technicalities, it sets the terms of reference for the debate itself.

another peaceful pilgrimmage to Najaf

The question is, how many schools did the pilgrims paint on the way to Najaf?

What a great song:

Pilgrims, pilgrims
Painting schools and smiling gay
For the Glory of Bush
For the Glory of Cheney
All the live long day

Pilgrims, pilgrims
High on life and the Iraqi way
For the Glory of Rummy
For the Glory of Rice
All the live long day

Pilgrims, pilgrims
On the road to Najaf todat
For the Glory--
--Son of a bitch who just set off the car bomb?

That is why we love you, Rider.

David Ignatius wrote last week that Sadr is complaining that he lost control of some extremists within his own forces:

The situation is deteriorating so fast that even radical militia leaders are said to be complaining about the anarchy. Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite firebrand who heads the militia known as the Mahdi Army, recently told a top official of the Iraqi intelligence service that "an increasing number of Shia death squads, operating under the name of his Mahdi Army, are Iranian pasdaran [Revolutionary Guards] staff officers and Hezbollah fighters, who are executing operational activities that he is not aware of, nor can he control," according to one U.S. source.

Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201669.html

Pity about the car bombing of the pilgrims - Giant Slay-Good must be an equal opportunity destructor of pilgrims.

Pale Rider: You're right and then you're not right.

How dare you, sir! I said how dare you!

That's all I'm saying - otherwise, no beef with you and please remember, I'm kind of an asshole.

Don't taunt me, buddy, don't taunt me. I'm a bad man.

Now boys - mother loves you equally...

My only disagreement is that when people proclaim "Amara falls to the insurgency", their hyperbole (yeah that IS what this is) distracts us from the far more important question of what's going on.

I would say your efforts to distract from discussion over the substantive impact of the events that some have labelled as Amara "falling" to the insurgency by arguing over whether that label is accurate is far more accurately described as distracting "from the far more important question fo what's going on" than is the actual act of using that label (debatable as its accuracy may be).

The important question is not "is it accurate to label this event a 'taking' of the city of Amara by the insurgents?" (Which is what you seem to want to distract the discussion with), but "what can we infer from this event about the prospects for the US in Iraq?"

It's not merely a quibble over technicalities,

Yes, it is exactly a quibble over technicalities, or, more precisely, semantics.

it sets the terms of reference for the debate itself.

Certainly the whole semantic debate you are trying to get in over whether the fact that the insurgents were able to displace the "legitimate" authorities until such time as their notional leader told them to knock it off actually counts as them "taking" the city is, indeed, an effort to set the terms from the debate; it is also completely vacuous. The only person distracting from substantive, meaningful debate is you with your fixation on the quibbling over semantics rather than discussing substance.

Stay the course!

pale rider wrote:

This is your delusional wingnut at his or her best--a "reasonable" assessment of having a force of 800 guerillas take over an Iraqi city means that the enemy--in this case, the insurgency--has decided to form battalions and start operating like a real military.

That's your clusterfuck situation, right there.
_____________________

One notes that the guerillas did not attack coalition forces, but Iraqi police. That is not a "battalion action." It might be anything from a mob to loosely coordinated simultaneous attacks.

If the militias have begun to act in large units, they will force the play - either the coalition or the Iraqi government will confront them. No one is claiming they can prevail in open combat, are they? They can only act in the absence of meaningful opposition.

This might be a one off event or it might signal the beginning of a new phase of the war. In either case, it is not Armageddon.

With the looming midterm elections and the imminent report from James Baker's Iraq Study Group facing them like a double-barreled shotgun, Congressional Republicans are beginning to cut and run on President Bush's failed Iraq strategy. But it is Kay Bailey Hutchison from the President's home state of Texas who is now performing the greatest pre-election turnabout. And in seeking cover from the woes of President Bush, Senator Hutchison has paradoxically lauded President Clinton's intervention in the Balkans, a policy she once vehemently opposed.

For the story of Hutchison's flip-flop, see:
"Hutchison Backs Iraq Partition, Endorses Clinton Balkans Policy."

One notes that the guerillas did not attack coalition forces, but Iraqi police. That is not a "battalion action." It might be anything from a mob to loosely coordinated simultaneous attacks.

Nice try, doofus. A force that big is quite a statement.

In the first place, 800 armed men seizing an Iraqi city? Well, that's at least a battalion operation, if you go by numbers. That's the thinking of the wingnuts--deny, deny, deny. Oh, no! They couldn't possibly be any good and they couldn't possibly have a command and control structure, practice good OPSEC or fight in organized units! They're just a bunch of dead-enders, aren't they?

Let's do the math--800 highly motivated militiamen took an Iraqi city and evicted all of the civil authority.

What were 300,000 supposedly trained Iraqis and 140,000 US troops able to do to stop it?

The Mahdi Army has a battalion that can fight on its own, take an Iraqi city, and hold it. How many fucking Iraqi government battalions can do the same?

Answer: apparently, none.

So if we're training the Iraqis, why the fuck aren't they able to stand up to the Madhi Army? How is it that a "mob" as you call it achieve total military control of an Iraqi city?

Perhaps we're backing the wrong mob. At least one of them is motivated enough to do something about its current situation.

Goddamn wingnuts can't stand the truth and can't stop fucking lying, can they?

In either case, it is not Armageddon.

It is for the policy, that's for damned sure.

I am curious about something. What exactly will it take before the reality is acknowledged?

Stay the course!

What exactly will it take before the reality is acknowledged?

Well, tell me when the wingnuts acknowledge the truth about Vietnam rather than holding to the dolschtosslegende, and then add about 3-4 decades.

The next step is simple. We need to ally ourselves with the moderate Sunnis (yes, the party of Hussein- remember, he was our ally at one time), and drive out the dominant- and extremist- Shiites. Democracy is a nice idea, something that kids can deal with in learning fair play. But the reality of the situation dictates that we make more onerous decisions. The Sunnis may be an ethnic minority in Iraq, but they are far less of a danger to us, and far more of a natural ally (due to their ethnic moderation), than the Shiites.

Vietnamese restaurants as far as the eye can see.... Stefan at 1:55 PM

This might be a one off event or it might signal the beginning of a new phase of the war. ... it is not Armageddon. Trashhauler at 7:22 PM

助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
中国助听器大全
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器信息网
中国助听器折扣网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
中国名牌助听器直销网
国际品牌助听器(北京)直销中心
安徽助听器资讯网
助听器（广州）验配中心
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗
浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
进口轴承
噪音
消音
冬虫夏草
海参
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
北京网站设计
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网站制作
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站优化
yahoo竞价
google推广
google排名
google优化
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网站设计 北京
网站推广
网站推广 北京
网站制作 北京
网页设计 北京
网站建设 北京

Vietnamese restaurants as far as the eye can see.... Stefan at 1:55 PM

Two points.

A. I know you're just having fun here, but those restaurants are all run by ex-RVN, which precisely illustrates my point about how "the Communists" who were supposedly going to attack California in the wake of a defeat in Vietnam never showed up. In fact, they never even showed up to attack Thailand.

B. I don't know about California, but no Vietnamese restaurant in New York produces food that can even compare with an above-average street stall in Dong Xuan Market in Hanoi.

Juan Cole has some additional analysis. This was not quite the insurgents vs the government and coalition story that initially appeared. His take is that it was a dispute between Sadr's militia (who happen to be politically powerful in Amara) and the Iranian backed Badr militia who had infilitrated the police force. The Sadrists assasinated a police official, the Badrists arrested some Sadrists, and it was "game ON!" till everybody got told to stand down.

Sure doesn't sound like the US or the Iraqi psuedo-government is actually in control in any meaningful sense of the word.

"AMARA FALLS TO THE INSURGENCY" should read:

"IRAQIS RECAPTURE THEIR CITY OF AMARA FROM OCCUPYING FORCES"

Shame on you.

Without appologies, I am posting this link to an open letter from Kevin Tillman on every thread.

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影