Victory in Iraq in 2008 : A Half-Time Update

One of the three most widely-read articles ever written on The Futurist has been my prediction, dated May 10, 2006.  It was an article titled "We Will Decisively Win in Iraq....in 2008, Part I" and "Part II". 

At the moment, we are 16 months from the prediction, yet another 15 months before the end of 2008.  Given that this is about the halfway point between the date of the prediction and end date, and that the report from General Petraeus was released earlier this month, it is the right time to see how well the original prediction is tracking. 

So let us start with the three components of defining what 'victory' would look like : a growing Iraqi economy, contained levels of violence, and sustained Iraqi governmental control over the entire country.  This is the loose definition of what victory would be.

To be clear, victory does NOT mean that US troops will vacate Iraq.  The US has had troops in Germany and Japan for 62 years, in South Korea for 54 years, in Bosnia for 10 years, and Afghanistan for 6 years.  None of those countries want us to leave, on account of all the free security and money they receive from our presence.  Iraq will be no exception.  Nor does victory mean US troop casualties have to be zero.  That, too, is not the case in many other foreign locations we are in.  Lastly, victory does not mean that there will magically be no violence between Shias and Sunnis for the first time in 1350 years.  It just means they will compromise enough for the government to function.

Back to the three metrics of victory, let us begin with the first.  The centerpiece of my initial prediction was Iraq's economic growth.  How is Iraq's economy faring?

GDP statistics for Iraq are notoriously hard to come by.  The Brookings Report has revised GDP numbers several times, and it appears that the year-ago projections for double-digit GDP growth have been knocked down to lower rates.  But this is still growth in the Iraqi economy.  Furthermore, the Iraqi Stock Exchange has continued to do well in 2007.  Another piece of my prediction relies on the proliferation of information and communications access, as measured by telephone and Internet penetration.  This is important because when the majority of people in a society have access to a wide variety of information, it is much harder to oppress them and suppress the urges of freedom.  As per the Brookings Report, both have grown nicely in the past 12 months.  It is true that electricity in Iraq is spotty, but this is only because the demand is skyrocketing.  Stable democracies like India also have electricity rationing and frequent blackouts because of rapidly rising demand.  The final piece of Iraqi prosperity is measured by the Human Development Index.  The UN does not calculate this index for Iraq, but their GDP per capita and other factors lead to an estimated HDI of about 0.660, which compares nicedly to many other Arab nations and Asian nations.  Overall, I will rate the Iraqi economy as trending positively.

Violence is the next metric to measure.  First, we will start with the Petraeus report, and the success of the Surge in general.  Remarkably, prominent Democrats like Senators Carl Levin and Dick Durbin have openly praised the progress being made, and the dramatic transformation of Al-Anbar province from an Al-Qaeda haven to an eager participant in Iraq's new democracy is nothing short of astonishing.  The public has caught on as well.  Support for both the war and the surge, while still low, has edged up 7-10 points just over the last few months.  More now say the war is winnable than at any time in the last 3 years.  Even the center-left British magazine The Economist makes the case for continued US presence.  While the death rate for US and Iraqi troops has fluctuated greatly from one month to the next, the trendline has not solidly dropped in the last 12 months. The number of terrorist attacks throughout Iraq has certainly abated, however, as have general casualties.  The 'Surge' under General Petraeus has led to many first and second tier terrorists meeting their demise.  However, my initial condition of all of Iraq become safe enough for tourism will clearly not be met in the near future, although the Kurdish areas are already safe and stable enough for a Vegas-style casino to open.  Overall, I will rate this metric as trending slightly positive. 

The third metric to measure is the level of control the Iraqi government and military are able to exert over the rest of the country.  Most Americans' dissatisfaction with prolonging US presence stems from the inability of the Iraqi government to make progress towards less dependence on US support.  A sustained Shia-Sunni cooperation remains elusive.  At the same time, the number of provinces that have been handed over to full Iraqi control continues to rise at a steady rate, and the problematic areas, particularly after the turn-around of Anbar province, are steadily shrinking in proportion to the stable areas.  I will rate this metric as trending neutral to slightly positive.   

Thus, by combining these three metrics, the verdict is that Iraq is trending in a moderately positive direction.  This is due to two key factors - the success of the 'Surge' under General Petraeus, and the rapid diffusion of technology enabling the Iraqi economy to still grow despite the challenging environment. 

Now, the anti-American fifth-column (8-10% of the US population) will try as hard as it can to downplay positive events and manufacture negative fiction.  It is revealing to note that Osama bin Laden's latest tape, authentic or not, babbles about 'global warming' and 'subprime mortgages', indicating the near-complete ideological convergence between anti-US fifth-columnists and Al-Qaeda.  Thus, both Al-Qaeda and fifth-columnists know that victory in Iraq would be an unacceptable setback to their joint cause. 

Given that some prominent Democrats now openly praising the progress under General Petraeus, the fifth-column pressure groups have turned the cross-hairs onto these Democrats.  The 'Betray Us' ad from an anti-US group that was printed in the New York Times was condemned by 23 Democrats, while also approved by 25.  The same ad was condemned by the public by a 58%/23% margin.  This even split is symbolic of the upcoming civil war within the Democratic Party, where on one side reside those Democrats who are pro-US enough to stand up to anti-US pressure groups, while on the other side reside those who are too dependent on such groups to risk displeasing them.  This civil war will play out over the next several years, with Iraq used as the core topic in determining allegiances between the two factions. 

Thus, at this half-way point, I am re-affirming my prediction that we will, despite many uncertainties, see victory in Iraq by 2008.  The biggest challenge will be convincing enough people that it is indeed a victory as per the measures above, rather than actually achieving them.

Michael Yon's photo essay is another must-read. 

Be patient - we are almost there.

Investor's Business Daily comments on the progress of the Surge.

The bogus Lancet study, which claimed Iraqi deaths to be over 10 times higher than they actually were, has been exposed as a possible case of outright fraud. 

Here is a YouTube video on how to ferret out accurate information on the progress in Iraq. 

Comments

[jeffolie]

"Thus, at this half-way point, I am re-affirming my prediction that we will see victory in Iraq by 2008."

I doubt it, but that would be great.

[World Citizen]

"indicating the near-complete ideological convergence between anti-US fifth-columnists and Al-Qaeda. "

mmm... utter nonsense.

it's so funny to me the way you label people who disagree with the war in Iraq as anti-US. Common man, if people disagree with the current administration, it does not mean they hate their own country and the citizens.

whatever happens in Iraq, you will call a victory in either way, I'm sure of it. ;)

The real truth will come surface in 10-50 years when the documents become available to the public, then we judge who is the winner, and who is the loser. Right now, IMHO, the loser is US budget which grow in deficit day by day and baby boomers who will see cuts in their social security, and the winning party is the war profiteers who make millions daily in Iraq from US budget and Iraqi oil deposits...

[GK]

World Citizen, (what an absurd name)

mmm... utter nonsense.

How so? You will have to be more specific on which aspects of Al-Qaeda you disapprove of.

if people disagree with the current administration, it does not mean they hate their own country and the citizens.

It does if you downplay the good news about the war, and are happy to hear bad news, or even make up bad news.

If you think this does not apply to you, then surely you have some better ideas about how to defeat Al-Qaeda.

So let's hear them. The burden of providing better ideas falls on you.

Right now, IMHO, the loser is US budget which grow in deficit day by day and baby boomers

Wrong. The US budget deficit is the lowest in 5 years.

Plus, if you believe that, that means you oppose ALL US wars, not just the Iraq War. You also would have to oppose the War in Afghanistan, and Clinton's wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc. All of those cost money too, you know. Or did you think that wars other than Iraq don't cost money?

[Dave]

'the loser is US budget which grow in deficit day by day and baby boomers who will see cuts in their social security, and the winning party is the war profiteers who make millions daily in Iraq from US budget and Iraqi oil deposits...'
The loser is US budget? Check your grammar first there pal. Second, if a man and woman need social security coming out of my paycheck to feed the outcome of their 'romp in the hay', then they should not have had the child or children to begin with. That is just irresponsible. Now let's digress for a second. You say the war is eating money? The war that is being fought so that you may maintain the freedom to shoot your mouth off at the expense of our brave fighting men and woman is unacceptable, but the massive amounts of money being spent on helping those people out there who just can't seem to keep their pants zipped is? Coming from every working class schmuck like me out there who does live within their means? Sir, not only are you the most blind and un-greatful ass I have ever had the dis-pleasure of exchanging words with, but a babbling idiot to boot. To make matters even worse, you make accusations of war profiteering and poor budgeting, but you stand for an even more vile ideal- IGNORANCE! Sorry bub, but I know many brave souls over there, and they have realized that once you grab a tiger by the tail, you cannot let go until you have finished it, or it will turn and maul you to death. But it is blatantly obvious that this is something you would love to see happen, just so that you would be proven right! You sicken and annoy me, and I wish you would crawl back into whatever hole you came from. While your at it, grow ears so that you may take in ALL the facts around you (not just the ones you WANT to), and some eyes as well so that you may read the WHOLE truth behind things, not just what you CHOOSE to see. I am out.

[Steve]

Assisting the Iraqis in their quest for freedom and liberty will benefit all of humanity. We should not be ignorant of the lessons of appeasement. Appeasement has always induced more violence, more bloodshed and, often times, bloodier wars.
Iraq will in the long run be a far better place than before when the vast majority of Iraqis were enslaved by the previous regime.

[Dave]

"The biggest challenge will be convincing enough people that it is indeed a victory as per the measures above..."

Well, yeah.  That's the real challenge, given that most people get their news from the MSM, the nation's leftist newspapers and news networks will not report positive events in Iraq, or if they do, they'll hide it in a big dollop of negative spin.

There's no way the U.S. and it's allies could have been victorious in WW2 with today's media.

[World Citizen]

Wow, wow

So much for the personal insult... I thought I had a conversation with adults, not teens... Can we discuss our points of view without personal attacks?

First off, I know what's going on in Iraq from first hands, my relative happens to be there third term, front line, just to let you know that I'm not just planting theories here.

He was like you, Dave, same ideas, after second term in Iraq, when he came home, he changed. I guess, you can call him anti-US now by your means... And there are a lot of soldiers (growing majority) who really thinks it's going nowhere, just waste of tax money and the field for war profiteers. Go figure.

[World Citizen]

The US budget deficit is the lowest in 5 years.

Oh, yeah?! It was recently 9 trillion, a new record in US history.
Visit this site of National Treasury and check the history of US Debt:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Check also this: http://www.federalbudget.com/

5 years is not long enough to judge the economy health, the current debt will take man-many years to get rid of.

www.DividedWeFail.com ;)

[GK]

World Citizen,

It appears you do not know the difference between the budget deficit (an annual measure, that is rapidly shrinking) and the national debt (a cumulative measure).

The $9 trillion debt is the same percentage of GDP has 15 years ago. The US GDP, at $14 trillion is also a record (the US stock market also hit many records this year). You cannot talk about the debt without taking it in proportion to the size of the economy.

Read this from wikipedia to educate yourself about the National Debt.

Plus, here you can see that the US debt is actually lower than Japan, France, Italy, and Canada relative to the size of the economy (as per the CIA World Factbook).

Now, you still have to answer my other questions :

1) What specific aspects of Al-Qaeda do you disapprove of?

2) If you oppose military action, what are your better ideas on how to defeat Al-Qaeda.

3) Do you also oppose the US War in Afghanistan, as well as Clinton's wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and his shooting of missiles at Sudan, and his bombing of Saddam in 1993 and 1998?

Answer these 3 questions, if you have the courage.

[World Citizen]

It appears you do not know the difference between the budget deficit

hmmm... I actually do, and both of those measures are showing the degradation.

Read this from wikipedia to educate yourself about the National Debt.
Great, we do worse then Kazakhstan :) Borat should be proud.

1) What specific aspects of Al-Qaeda do you disapprove of?

I disapprove all of them, especially their tactics, as Extream Islamism and Evangelical Catholicism are institutions against the humanity.
I may consider Al-Qaeda as an artificial virtual organization created to serve the needs of some elephant party members ;) because all the news about that organization somehow come from those party members, not independent news channels.
However, after all that turmoil with Islamic people, similar organizations may appear, and all their actions may be claimed as "Al-Qaeda" actions.
Something makes me believe that Bin Laden is a salaried employee of CIA. Interesting enough, all the "legitimate tapes" of Bin Laden speeches were "revealed" by CIA, not any other international organization like InterPol.

2) If you oppose military action, what are your better ideas on how to defeat Al-Qaeda.

Who says it will be defeated by wide military action? They are partisans.
2 possible actions:
1) Covert Ops to remove the key people.
2) Diplomacy still works if executed properly, and proved to work better in long term then aggressive military action. Everybody has their own needs, it's always possible to reach the golden point.

3) Do you also oppose the US War in Afghanistan, as well as Clinton's wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and his shooting of missiles at Sudan, and his bombing of Saddam in 1993 and 1998?
Let's say, I think the previous war in Afganistan was merely stand off against Soviet Union, and the current war there is a waste of money.
The bloody shed in Bosnia and Kosovo was a sad event, and a mistake. Somalia was a disgrace for our generals, very bad executed and useless.
Bombing of Saddam - did not do any good.

All those wars just show how we do not respect our own Constitution. And how shortsighted we are.

That's my opinion, like it or not.

[GK]

World Citizen,

I actually do, and both of those measures are showing the degradation.

Nope. They aren't, and I already provided links. You are trying to avoid facts that are inconvenient to your pre-conceived views.

Great, we do worse then Kazakhstan

But I already stated that we do better than Canada, France, Italy, and Japan. You ignored that because the facts are inconvenient to you (anyone see a pattern here)?

Now, as for the questions.

1) So you actually think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA? How do you explain all the terror attacks in London, Madrid, Bombay, Bali, Beslan, Turkey, Jordan, and Morocco? What about attacks in the 1990s (1993 WTC bombing, USS Cole, Kenya/Tanzania embassies), that were before Bush was President?

2) 1) Covert Ops to remove the key people.

OK, so you approve of assassination of key people. I support this too. But note that this violates 'international law'.

3) So you oppose ALL US wars? How is Afghanistan a waste of money? Are you saying the US should not have interfered in Bosnia and Kosovo?

That's my opinion, like it or not.

A stubbornly uninformed opinion is not one deserving of serious consideration.

[World Citizen]

So you oppose ALL US wars

Not all, I approve WWI, WWII and Civil War.

Are you saying the US should not have interfered in Bosnia and Kosovo?
Not that way. You cannot just go there and bomb civilians just because they have a religious/land dispute, without actually studying the situation.

OK, so you approve of assassination of key people. I support this too. But note that this violates 'international law'.
If a person proved to be a criminal, a case filled in Interpol, then the operation can be approved by NATO. We already have such cases, I just have no time to dig.

But I already stated that we do better than Canada, France, Italy, and Japan. You ignored that because the facts are inconvenient to you (anyone see a pattern here)?

There are patterns on my side as well as on your side as well, nothing unusual.

My point is - Kazakhstan is a developing country, and even they have less debt then "developed" US.

France, Italy, and Japan - they all have much weaker economies due to the historical events (like WWI and WWII), but even despite being completely ruined, they managed to get back on the track. Canada is just 0.7% behind, dont forget they have less people to pay taxes.

I'm amazed that Russia (and most of Baltic countries) has very low public debt despite their crisis in '90s.

So you actually think Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA?

Yes I do. Bite me.

[GK]

World Citizen,

If a person proved to be a criminal, a case filled in Interpol, then the operation can be approved by NATO

So how do you actually PREVENT terrorism, under this plan? How do you extinguish the root causes?

France, Italy, and Japan - they all have much weaker economies due to the historical events (like WWI and WWII), but even despite being completely ruined, they managed to get back on the track.

With total US help, of course. Plus, events of 60 years ago are not the cause of debt today. Note that Japan saves money by having the US defend it to this day.

A rich person with a $1 million mortgage on a $2 million house has more debt than a poor person who lives in an apartment with roommates, you know. But which of the two would you rather be?

Canada is just 0.7% behind, dont forget they have less people to pay taxes.

I think you don't understand the concept of 'per capita'. Canada's debt, in relation to the size of its economy, is larger than the US. Period. This, despite the fact that Canada saves a lot of money on defense due to the US.

Yes I do. Bite me.

So why do no Democrat congressmen share this view? If your theory had any basis in reality whatsoever, why isn't there a single Democrat that believes this, even though they have to most to gain if it is true?

Also, why aren't you writing letters to Democrat congressmen to investigate what you have discovered about Al-Qaeda and the CIA?

Believing in deranged conspiracy theories that not one elected official believes in is nothing to be proud of.

[Steve]

Three important points to consider:

1. America has always sought to end conquest, and to advance liberty. America and other freedom-loving peoples are one of the principal reasons why most of the world is free.

2. Shall we lend a hand to people in their quest for individual liberty?

Europe, and most of Asia are free due to the direct engagement of America throughout the past 75 years.

If we do lend a hand to assist people in their quest for individual liberty, how should we do so? Shall we allow a totalitarian regime to continue to slaughter their own citizens?

Whether in Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, Belgium, France, Korea, and Vietnam--and so many other places where American GI's have assisted humanity--in each and every case, we have sought to liberate an enslaved citizenry.

We can debate the actual specific actions in each of the above situations, but the central theme of our action was assistance to oppressed people from tyrannical governments.

3. Al-Qaeda was a creation of two people: Abdullah Azzam and Osama Bin Laden. Azzam is the ideological father of Al-Qaeda, who created the organization around 1987. Azzam and Bin Laden extended the spiritual struggle of Jihad into a violent strain of Jihad, so called holy war. After Azzam was blown up, with his two sons in a car in 1989, Bin Laden took over all managerial authority of Al-Qaeda, a criminal run organization that is abhorent to the principles of a free society. No organ of America's institutions gave assistance to the creation or the running of Al-Qaeda.

During the 1990's, America through neglect, after not responding to Al-Qaeda killing Americans in the WTC (1993), Somalia (1993), assassination attempts of Pope John Paul II and President Clinton (1994), and Riyadh (1995)--allowed Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations to flourish.

Rohan Gunaratna's excellent book on 'Inside Al Qaeda' is an excellent primer on Al Qaeda itself and the rise of other anti-liberty ideologies of our day.

Thanks.

[Dave]

World Citizen,
Without personnel attacks, I will once again make my point . 1- I am not a teen. I have served in the army for over 9 years now, been around the world (literally) 3 times, lived in 4 different countries where I learned the language and culture, and have a moderate level of civilian education as well. The extent of your education seems to wikipedia. Which seems to work for you considering it bans anything it disagrees with. So, once again, you spoke from ignorance, something which I should have expected coming from your hypocritical mouth.

'First off, I know what's going on in Iraq from first hands, my relative happens to be there third term, front line, just to let you know that I'm not just planting theories here'. Bulls****. Any troop away from his home for that long will question why he is there. Especially a 'college grunt'(a term I use to refer to soldiers who use the army to get college money, and then get suprised that work is involved, I have seen it alot in my time in, and it sickens me). First off, if your opinion is coming from such a person (who you confirmed in your own words to be the case), then you are even more the blind idiot I referred to previously.

ANSWER ME "WORLD MORON"-
How do you justify giving women who cant keep their pants zipped on multiple occassions money that comes out of the paychecks of the rest of us hard working Americans, but not the money it takes to secure your freedom?!

THINK about it IF YOU CAN! Not every soldier or every American will understand why we do anything in this country. YOU are a prime example. You have the entire internet, entire libraries to visit, and the entire world to explore (which it sounds by your ridiculous screen name that you have done), and this is the best you can do?!

When I was an MP, I learned how two people involved in a incident can tell two differant stories, but when you put them together, it makes perfect sense. You on the other hand, would be the moron to see only one side, and assume that it is the whole truth. This is evident by your own postings sir.

A 'World Citizen?!' I bet you are, because you sure as hell aren't one of us!

[usnjay]

Good article. I posted your original article on my site, but now I'm worried you may be wrong. We may have victory BEFORE 2008.

I'm kidding, but the progress of the surge has been remarkable. The 'surge of operations' has only been going on since mid-June, yet we've seen a dramatic drop in civilian attacks and ethno-sectarian deaths.

The up to date version of Petraeus' graph shows a continuation of the drop in violence (original is here: ( http://appealforcourage.org/public/Graphs/Graphs.aspx ). Also, we'll have about the same number of forces for 3 more months, with steadily rising numbers of increasingly competent Iraqi police and military.

Various anti-American groups have controlled the debate while the Iraqi democracy was being formed, they'll have a harder time of it now that is becoming stronger.

[GK]

usnjay,

I have linked to your link, within the article. The good news is - the public's support is rising.

Why? Containment of Nuclear Pakistan and Iran.
Simple.

Knock aside two dangerous bullies, and point tanks
at the alQaeda cartel's paymasters. Go ahead, send your mercenary contractors again.

Devious Saudi Arabia, tottering Egypt, and
wavering Turkey aren't nuclear...yet.

Islam breeds and sells soldiers. The Iraq theater is a quagmire- for THEM. We will be there till the wells run dry- about 20 years.

The Islamic Ummah (global nation) has always bred soldiers and financed it through slavery and imperialism. British borders and Nazi/Soviet trained dictators are only modern developments.

Afghanistan Taliban was merely a puppet government, created by Pakistan, and installed in Afghanistan after the Russians were run out. China has built at least one nuclear reactor and is building stealth subs in the port of Acer, Pakistan.
Glad to see your article on unnoticed Pakistan- Iran won't last.

Saddam was NEVER an ally, nor did he wish to join the "Western Club". Sanctions only work if you want in. Instead, Oil-for-Food paid for multiple attacks in the US, by a small cell as it moved from city to city. All blamed on Christian militias, airline fuel tanks, an anti-abortionist, and Osama bin Laden.

How contrived. How convenient. How politically correct.

Russia and China, revitalized by the previous administration, have been arming the jihadi Ummah. Soviet military has been training Middle Eastern armies since Stalin.

This is classic Cold War maneuvering.

[Saul Wall]

"First off, I know what's going on in Iraq from first hands, my relative happens to be there third term, front line,"

Drafted was he? Or does he enjoy working for a project that was doomed to failure from the start as some seem to wish?

Would you like to know why many people lump anti-war people in with al Qaeda? In my case it is because I listen to both groups and I am not alone in noticing that:

A) The anti-war folk see Christians (a group that I am personally very critical of myself) as no different than terrorist groups and theocratic totalitarians like the Taliban (i.e. These peace advocates are as insane as AQ).

B) They are politically and emotionally invested in a US failure in Iraq and a collapse of the democratically elected government in that nation to the point that news of progress there is offensive enough to drive them from the room or provoke derision and condemnation.

C) They publish and produce daydreams about assassinating the President and of American forces being chased out of Iraq from the roof of the embassy in a helicopter (hearkening back to that other nation that was liberated from tyranny only to be betrayed and surrendered to the enemy as I am sure South Koreans would have been if the anti-war Boomers had been old enough to wave the white flag).

D) When AQ makes an accusation and the US or Iraqi governments refute it the AQ version is always taken as the true version of events by the anti-war community.

Those are my top reasons.

[Dave]

Saul,
I do not agree with everything you have said, but I must say Bravo! Finally someone who sees a behavioral connection and shares it.

As for the points I disagree with- Here is why-

You say that 'a project doomed from the start'. What project are you referring to? If you are referring to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then let me ask you this- Why has no attack been made on US soil if the project is so doomed since 9-1-1? Also, please take into consideration that neither you nor I know everything that is going on behind the scenes. You can read conspiracy theories, one after another, and still be either back at square one, or down the wrong street completely, wrapped up in the BS that in truth, has less effect on your life then what would have been had 9-1-1 not happened at all.

2- I am a Christian (albeit not in the conventional form), and do not either support, or oppose any war. Wars have been part of our history as far back as we were in existence. Sure I wish that all those people did not have to die, but hey, gotta balance out the baby boomers somehow I guess.

2-Love what you said in point B, and agree with it. Great point :-)

3- Love C too. I feel inclined though to add though that some people do not want to see us lose, but from where they sit, the US pulling from Iraq would be a victory for the US. That many blind people makes you sad huh?

4-'True version of events'. I posted earlier how when I was an MP, two people involved in an incident can tell you two seemingly opposing stories, but if you actually sit down and think about, usually they were both telling the truth based on their point of view. This applies here to, only on a much more complex scale. Entire nations of many different minded people are involved, so of course each individual will have their own view point as to what is really going on. My way of looking at it, is that unless you have truly run a mission as a soldier, filed the intel reports, or analyzed the situation as whole, that you should not comment on it for bad or good. The problem is people who are not involved telling congress what to do because their sensibilities were offended. This of course makes an even larger debacle as the politicians force the generals to do what 'the American people want', ignorant of what is really going on, or ignoring what really needs to happen. I am a network technician, and I do my job, I will let them do theirs. Fight when you must, and make peace when you must. Enough said.

[Dave]

Saul,
I forgot to add:
It is not good to fight and kill with no good reason. However when the situation merits, it should not be an ignored course of action.

Also, the fact that your name is Saul, and that you are critical of Christians is very ironic. You see in the bible, a man named Saul used to flat out persecute Christians. One day he was struck blind for awhile and rethought his life. Later he became an apostle to Jesus and his name was changed to Paul. Or if your Catholic, St. Paul. LOL

[GK]

Saul,

You are right. As you know, I have been talking about the fifth-column in the US (8-10% of the US population), that has ideological common ground with AQ. Bin Laden's attempt to reach out to these potential allies of his is well-known.

[SanFranciscoJim]

So I take it this means that you have parted ways with the White House, which defines victory in Iraq as the following:

Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

I guess with your extremely limited goals now, there is a slight chance they will be achieved. The truth is, you will continue to lower the bar until you can claim "victory."

It would be a great thing if there was a peaceful, democratic, united and economically thriving Iraq by 2008. It would also be great if the Tooth Fairy came by and waved her magic wand and gave me $1M. Both are about equally likely to happen.

[GK]

Look how 'World Citizen' ran away once I pointed out that no elected Democrat in congress believes that Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA in order to get the Republicans elected.

[GK]

SFJim,

As usual, you are wrong again. I have not lowered the bar in any of my predictions (nor have any predictions turned out to be wrong yet).

I just said all of Iraq will not be sfe enough for tourism in 2008, although the Kurdish areas already are. They even have a casino.

You have never answered any of my questions regarding how to win the WoT, if you oppose the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so much. Since you have provided none, and display palpable glee in hoping for things to go worse in Iraq, shows that you are rooting for America to fail.

I support the war just as moderates like Joe Lieberman, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani do. That is the moderate position, as opposed to your anti-US one. Joe Lieberman was actually the Democrat's VP candidate in 2000, you know.

Here is a blog from military people that actually shows the progress being made from the Surge. Too bad they have individuals like you hoping for them to fail.

[SanFranciscoJim]

If I corrected all the nonsense you posted here, I would not have time for anything else. Particularly since you ignore the things I say and continue to project your own insecurities and fantasies on others.

There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes. In this fashion, it is very similar to the "War on Drugs." Both exist primarily to frighten voters into supporting policy that is not in their best interest. As a "positive" side effect (from the pro-War point of view) they allow the GOP to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pocket of favored constituencies, who then return the favor with campaign contributions.

The best way to "win" an ideological conflict, which is what the ongoing 1000 year struggle between the forces of Liberalism and the forces of religious extremism is, is to demonstrate the superiority of your belief system. In The West, we had the Renaissance and the The Enlightenment, which finally demonstrated the power of rationalism and logic over superstition. Though we continually struggle with religious extremism and its consequences, especially here in America, we seem to have banished Theocracy for good.

Other societies will have to come to their own realizations about the best way to organize and manage their affairs. We can provide a good example and give economic incentives, but trying to change a society's fundamental way of organizing and thinking of itself by the use of force is doomed to folly. Short of genocide, or at least threatened and partially carried out genocide, I cannot think of a single historical example where this has worked. Can you?

What you imagine to be the "War on Terror" is more accurately realized as a battle in the long struggle between Islam and The West. The first nine crusades were failures. By what hubris did you think that the 10th would lead to success?

In fact, the War on Iraq has precisely accomplished the opposite of its stated goals:

1) It has emboldened the enemies of America and held them up to the Islamic world as defenders of The Faith against the "Great Satan" the United States.

2) It has weakened America politically, economically and militarily.

3) It has offended our allies and loosened the bonds of alliance with our natural partners in Europe.

4) It has distracted us in the global competition for resources and influence with China, which is a much more important competition.

This was all predictable (and predicted) before even the first shot was fired. Unfortunately, anger and emotionalism prevailed over common sense. But now an overwhelming majority of Americans have realized that the Iraq war has made us less safe. Maybe eventually you will come around to see it too.

[SanFranciscoJim]

If I corrected all the nonsense you posted here, I would not have time for anything else. Particularly since you ignore the things I say and continue to project your own insecurities and fantasies on others.

There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes. In this fashion, it is very similar to the "War on Drugs." Both exist primarily to frighten voters into supporting policy that is not in their best interest. As a "positive" side effect (from the pro-War point of view) they allow the GOP to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pocket of favored constituencies, who then return the favor with campaign contributions.

The best way to "win" an ideological conflict, which is what the ongoing 1000 year struggle between the forces of Liberalism and the forces of religious extremism is, is to demonstrate the superiority of your belief system. In The West, we had the Renaissance and the The Enlightenment, which finally demonstrated the power of rationalism and logic over superstition. Though we continually struggle with religious extremism and its consequences, especially here in America, we seem to have banished Theocracy for good.

Other societies will have to come to their own realizations about the best way to organize and manage their affairs. We can provide a good example and give economic incentives, but trying to change a society's fundamental way of organizing and thinking of itself by the use of force is doomed to folly. Short of genocide, or at least threatened and partially carried out genocide, I cannot think of a single historical example where this has worked. Can you?

What you imagine to be the "War on Terror" is more accurately realized as a battle in the long struggle between Islam and The West. The first nine crusades were failures. By what hubris did you think that the 10th would lead to success?

In fact, the War on Iraq has precisely accomplished the opposite of its stated goals:

1) It has emboldened the enemies of America and held them up to the Islamic world as defenders of The Faith against the "Great Satan" the United States.

2) It has weakened America politically, economically and militarily.

3) It has offended our allies and loosened the bonds of alliance with our natural partners in Europe.

4) It has distracted us in the global competition for resources and influence with China, which is a much more important competition.

This was all predictable (and predicted) before even the first shot was fired. Unfortunately, anger and emotionalism prevailed over common sense. But now an overwhelming majority of Americans have realized that the Iraq war has made us less safe. Maybe eventually you will come around to see it too.

[GK]

SFJim,

If I corrected all the nonsense you posted here, I would not have time for anything else.

Bull. You have posted 20+ messages all over here, and nowhere do you answer simple questions. Time is certainly not your constraint.

This is a pretty cowardly way for you to surrender to defeat, but you have.

There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes.

It appears inconvenient for you to acknowledge the many terrorist attacks before Bush was President : 1993 WTC bombing, the Kenya/Tanzania embassies, the 1983 Marine Barracks, the 1996 Khobar towers, the 2000 USS Cole, etc.

So what is your answer to that?

I cannot think of a single historical example where this has worked. Can you?

Germany, Japan, South Korea. You will probably quibble about the details, but what we are accomplishing in Afghanistan and Iraq is similar.

Plus, you still can provide no alternative ideas on how to better win against the terrorists. You have no business criticizing the current actions, then.

is more accurately realized as a battle in the long struggle between Islam and The West.

Not quite accurate. Thailand, India, etc. also suffer from terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.

In fact, the War on Iraq has precisely accomplished the opposite of its stated goals:

1) It has emboldened the enemies of America and held them up to the Islamic world as defenders of The Faith against the "Great Satan" the United States.

Nope. Why are Iraqis more cooperative now that at any time in the last 5 years? Because they recognize that Al-Qaeda represents a far worse fate for them.

2) It has weakened America politically, economically and militarily.

Based on what? Simply chanting something you deeply wish for does not make it true. What facts do you have to support this?

3) It has offended our allies and loosened the bonds of alliance with our natural partners in Europe.

Wrong again. France and Germany voted out anti-US leaders and voted in pro-US leaders. Sarkozy of France actually wants to support us in military action against Iran.

Europe has moved much closer to a pro-US ideology in the last 2 years.

This was all predictable (and predicted) before even the first shot was fired.

Again, this proves you oppose even the War in Afghanistan, thus disagreeing with the 90% of the US population that supports the invasion of Afghanistan.

This makes you not anti-Iraq War, but anti-US in general.

But now an overwhelming majority of Americans have realized that the Iraq war has made us less safe.

You keep saying this without any proof or logic whatsoever. I have proven time and again with credible sources that your opinion is a small minority, and that more people are positive on the war than are negative (43-38 to be exact).

How do you account for the fact that the US has had no terrorist attacks int he last 6 years? It is hard to argue (intelligently) with such a resounding success.

[Dave]

SF Jim,
I think GK did an excellent job answering your last nonsensical pout. However I must add this:

You said 'There is no such thing as "War on Terror", it is entirely a political fiction created by the GOP to win votes.'
This has actually lost the GOP votes over the last 5 years (but they are starting to show up again). The polls speak for that. Any politician knows that growing into a war in which they cannot present all the facts to the public before doing so, will kill their career. So the reason for many of these on going wars was certainly not votes.

You also say 'they allow the GOP to funnel taxpayer dollars into the pocket of favored constituencies, who then return the favor with campaign contributions'. Favorite constituencies? Do you even know what that word means? I suggest you look it up. In a nutshell, it means a body of voters, a group of supporters, or a clientele. The money did not go back into my pocket, I will tell you that, so it can't be the voter option. It would not go to a group of supporters because that would be not only illegal, but edging on bribery on a MASS scale, so this leaves clientele. If you are referring to Halliburton, another defense contractor, or a really ballsy (pardon my French) construction company, then you need to do your homework, or at the very least learn to put two and two together. I will explain starting with Halliburton.
Halliburton was a company who accepted the job to 'rebuild Iraq', and needed a lot of capitol to do so for many reasons. I need only name two for you to get the idea- 1-You need to pay employees a lot to do ANYTHING in a hot zone. 2-Mostly after you rebuild something, the terrorists will do their best to knock it down again, thus making material highly expensive. These two do not even take into account the shipping and maintenance of both 1&2. Their stock never did reach an unreasonable hike as much of their profit was going towards recruiting and the previously mentioned points. Are they going to turn around and give back in contributions that made all this possible for them? YES THEY WOULD! Furthermore, if I had a company like that was doing a job that very few other companies would (and I mean actually go over there and do the job ,not just opening their mouths and talking big about what they would do), and made a nice profit on it, I would to! This goes back to an age old saying 'do not bite the hand that feeds you'. As for the other companies, they are in the same boat, and if you disagree with what I posted, then you stand against capitalism, one of the greatest freedoms (albeit the most abused), of this country.

'The best way to "win" an ideological conflict, which is what the ongoing 1000 year struggle between the forces of Liberalism and the forces of religious extremism is, is to demonstrate the superiority of your belief system.
Fair enough. Let me give you a better example then the BS ones you gave that were completely out of context given the culture and history of both.
To demonstrate your superiority due to your belief system does not necessarily mean that others will see it as superior. Remember that different cultures see things different ways. In Iraq, and through out many countries in the middle east, war has been flaring for thousands of years. If you wave a peace flag, you will either be shot, or evicted from such a place. Then came Saddam. He showed them a ‘Superior Belief’ alright- ‘Do as I say, or die!’. Well, obviously they chose to die (which was inevitable given circumstance). So, a forced peace was spread that lasted only through tyranny. Years later Saddam is out of power, and the 3 major religious based ‘tribes’, are fighting again. Fighting is mostly in their blood. To appeal to a fighter, one must fight. Call it a trial by combat if you will. The weak, or those who do not believe in fighting, look up to us for help. Those who continue to fight, need our help. Those who fight against us, and their fellow countrymen, must fight or die. Sorry to be so blunt, but it is the only way to stop a people who are bent on destruction (like GK said, witness WWII). Your problem is, you try to argue an ancient conflict, with a more modern ideal that was in a much different society with a completely different mindset. I am not trying to be rude when I tell you that I believe that you should start studying more history (trying to keep it relevant to the times and cultures) and remember to the ‘Human Element’. Also remember, in the real world Ideology + Realism= Idiocy that dooms itself to a certain end.

‘In The West, we had the Renaissance and the The Enlightenment, which finally demonstrated the power of rationalism and logic over superstition. Though we continually struggle with religious extremism and its consequences, especially here in America, we seem to have banished Theocracy for good'
The Renaissance was preceded by the black death. The Enlightenment was heralded by many bloody wars. In either case, both periods of peace were ushered in by very grotesque acts and disease with a total death toll that was unmatched in both Iraq and Afghanistan on a ratio basis. This is a swing in history my friend. History has never found a balance, but is more like a pendulum that swings from side to side. To reach an era of peace in any nation, that nation must grow through ‘growing pains’ if you will. This is not merely my opinion, but a fact demonstrated time and time again throughout history. Religious extremes??? Where did you come up with this conclusion? What other country can you go to where you can be Islamic, Christian, Mormon, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever, and find a place to worship (or not) with major persecution regardless of your belief? Religious extremes, is actually the opposite of what is. Religious extremes is what the terrorists practice. And in their religion, it may not be even considered extreme. Where they have a zero tolerance policy against other religions, we have the policy of complete religious freedom. This however might be one of America’s undoing’s because different religious outlooks breeds different mentalities which in turn breeds a divided nation. Yes, America has kind of shot itself in the foot on that one, but hey, abused freedom is the only thing that is making this country eat itself from the inside out.

GK,
Sorry for wasting your webspace..I’ll shut up now

[John Bull]

Interesting to see the same pointed arguments used by GK over & over again on the political postings on his blog. And of course when the rationalism gets too much there's always judicious use of the delete comment functionality.

The surge has apparently been moderately successful in stemming the enormous tide of sectarian violence that was, let's not forget, unleashed by the US-led invasion & occupation. It remains to be seen whether the violence returns when the troops leave, as many have predicted. This seems an especially pertinent fear since, as even GK notes, the Iraqi (puppet) government's control is weak.

It does seem likley that the US will have to have a sizeable contigent of troops in Iraq for some time, rather than being confident enough in the new (nominal) democratic structures installed to simply leave. So how can a decades long (somewhat reduced) occupation be considered an overall victory?

All the talk of al-Qaeda on an Iraq post is sophistry on GK's (& others') part. Never forget that there was not one shred of evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda or linking Iraq to any of the terrorist attacks that GK relexively trots out. (GK may now say that Saddam allegedly funded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.)

It is now undeniable that since the invasion & during the subsequent occupation, terrorist cells have been imported & trained in Iraq where there were none before. One could argue, as many Americans do, that it's better to fight & destory another country, than to risk another attack on US soil; from this perspective the invasion has been massively successful, although 3000+ US soldiers' lives have been lost (as well as untold [& ignored] Iraqi casualties).

It seems to me that yes, things might be marginally improving, or 'trending', but that this is because things couldn't have been any worse.

[GK]

John Bull, (an appropriate surname.... tee hee)

Interesting to see the same pointed arguments used by GK over & over again on the political postings on his blog.

Why change an effective winning strategy?

And of course when the rationalism gets too much there's always judicious use of the delete comment functionality.

Hold it right there. I have never deleted any non-profane comments here. Certainly, I have never deleted any of yours - I didn't need to when winning the debate was so easy.

That is a blatant lie. You are still bitter over thrashings I gave you months ago, it appears.

unleashed by the US-led invasion & occupation.

Of course, Saddam killing far greater numbers of people before 2003 is acceptable to you.

So how can a decades long (somewhat reduced) occupation be considered an overall victory?

By that measure, the fact that we still have tens of thousands of troops in Germany and Japan proves that there was no victory there. Thus, your point is weak.

not one shred of evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda

Wrong again. Names like Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are familiar to people knowledgeable about the subject. There was also the Salman Pak training camp. Plus, Saddam also had fingerprints all over the 1993 WTC bombing.

Furthermore, you avoid the inconvenient fact that Clinton bombed Saddam extensively in 1998 due to Saddam's WMD programs, and ties to the 1993 WTC bombing. Go educate yourself about Operation Desert Fox.

However, these facts will simply be ignored by someone too heavily invested in a US failure. Thus, I pose the same question that usually trips up people of your ilk :

If you disagree with the course taken, what are your better ideas for winning the War against Al-Qaeda and similar groups of terrorists?

[John Bull]

"I have never deleted any non-profane comments here. "...exactly my point, you do delete when the 'profanity' threatens to expose your so-called 'winning strategy'.

Do you think Saddam would have killed as many people since 2003 as the American-led invasion has? America's action resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands is better than deaths at the hands of Saddam?

So you're saying the troops in Germany & other parts of Europe are an occupying force? You don't seem to know much about troop movements or military strategy.

Followed by, as predicted, some tenuous 'links' (in your mind at least) to a couple of Palestinian terrorists, none of them supported by the Saddam government. The absolute lack of an al-Qaeda to Saddam link is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Senate too.

What has Clinton's bombing of Iraq got to do with al-Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq? Why would I explain a point for you, unless you are clueless about it.

How do I become "heavily invested in a US failure" when acknowledging that things have improved with the surge whilst maintaining caution that things will improve once the surge is over, & whilst deploring the great loss of life, both US & Iraqi?
I think most sensible, realistic & compassionate human beings, unlike you, would do the same?

[Dave]

John Bull,
You are way out of your element here son. I explained in my last post how if your going to use a prior example in history or the like, that it needs to be relevant to the culture, time, and history of the nation in debate. Just like 'World Moron', you use examples and tabloid crap from CNN (the communist news network) that has no bearing on reality, and the only people who actually believe it, are people like you. John Bull as in full of bull s***, or John Bull with the thick skull of the animal and the intelligence level to match? I am not agreeing with GK just to agree, I actually do not agree with everything, but morons like yourself make it impossible not to.
For instance:
‘It remains to be seen whether the violence returns when the troops leave, as many have predicted. This seems an especially pertinent fear since, as even GK notes, the Iraqi (puppet) government's control is weak.’
This further proves the point I made awhile ago ‘once you grab a tiger by the tail, you must either hang on or stab away until it is dead, or it will turn and kill you’. Think about what you said. If we did not go to Iraq for terrorists and WMD’s, then that leaves one of two things: oil or liberating Iraq. Take oil- we have more then enough. Do you honestly believe that the US needs Iraq’s oil? Remember that Iraq was torching their own oil fields for almost a decade and a half now for internal political positioning of money and power. Why would have waited until 04’ to do something about it? Why would the US spend billions of dollars monthly to save a few billion in oil a year? Think about it, it wouldn’t! We sure did not go over there to free Iraq because they asked us to I will tell you that much. Think about that also. This leaves the original terrorist, or WMD’s. Both can easily go hand in hand. You have over 6000 square miles of desert. Hiding anything is not that difficult. Even with satellite surveillance, there is no way to see everything. Also keep in mind that because Al Qaeda is not a sect of people, but a religion-gone-wrong based threat. Therefore it is not secluded to a particular country. Keeping this fact in mind, remember that the terrorist were buying weapons from Saddam. Thus forming a symbiotic relationship between the two. If the US were to pull out of Iraq right now, the terrorist would take advantage of the weakened moral, economy, and military of Iraq, and through subversion, gain ground and support from them. You are right to say that their government is weak right now, but foolish to assume that it will remain that way. You are looking at the current state only, and ignoring the progress already made, and that continues to happen daily.

The rest of your idiotic remarks were handled quite well already, so I will stop here, but at least try to say something intelligent the next time you decide to let out some hot air.

[Dave]

J Bull brain,
'So you're saying the troops in Germany & other parts of Europe are an occupying force? You don't seem to know much about troop movements or military strategy'

Neither do you it appears. Once again, read history before spouting a portion of it like you actually know something.

Troops in Germany and Europe did in fact start out as ‘occupying force’. Yet even today, we train with them, give them an economical hand, and like GK pointed out, give them free security. This is also a great benefit to us in international relations. I know I lived there for some time. If you had half a clue what you were talking about, you would not have said what you just did.

Timeline went like this- War started. America goes in and did it’s thing with the help it’s allies. Main troop bodies pull out leaving what is called ‘contingency forces’. These forces then aided Germany in rebuilding, fending off potential parasites who would feed off of the host nation, and over 40 years later, are still there doing the above mentioned tasks, with the above mentioned benefits. The only difference now is that the enemy has changed. Germans fought bravely in WWII, and after getting to know many of them, they have my respect. Terrorists on the other hand go for unarmed targets mostly civilians. Instead of using the ‘steel against steel method’, they use the ‘kill the innocent and unwary’. They use this as a method to strike at what hurts most- forcing the loss of a loved one which is the most moral damaging thing you can do to make the enemy lose their cool. However the end result will be the same. They will be driven out eventually, and then things will happen just like they did in Germany, Europe etc. You idiot.

‘Followed by, as predicted, some tenuous 'links' (in your mind at least) to a couple of Palestinian terrorists, none of them supported by the Saddam government. The absolute lack of an al-Qaeda to Saddam link is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Senate too.’

GK has posted his sources and truth. Where are yours? Besides, remember that the senate controls the media by telling them what they want to hear at the time. Then people like like you listen and believe it with no further investigation on both sides of the fence, and start stupid rallies and protests that amount to nothing. Less then 7 months ago the senate was threatening to VETO Bush’s spending bill. Yet once the voting time was in, notice how quickly many changed their minds? Besides, I guarantee that you have not read a single paragraph out of that bill have you? Do me a favor. Read it and get back to me and then tell me what you think.

HAND

[GK]

exactly my point, you do delete when the 'profanity' threatens to expose your so-called 'winning strategy'.

No I don't. I have not deleted anything at all in ages, you cowardly liar. I don't need to - your illogical mind implodes upon itself.

Do you think Saddam would have killed as many people since 2003 as the American-led invasion has?

Yes, I do, as he was for decades. You are actually defending Saddam, who used chemical weapons against his own people. I know that leftists love it when brown people kill other brown people, but this is going too far.

America's action resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands is better than deaths at the hands of Saddam?

Saddam killed about 4 million. America has actually saved the lives of millions just by stopping the Oil-for-Food scandal. Those dying in Iraq today are being killed by terrorists, not by US troops. Why do you excuse the terrorists?

The absolute lack of an al-Qaeda to Saddam link is not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the Senate too.

Wrong. The Senate repeated said there ARE links, which is why Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards voted for the war. Even Al Gore spoke of Saddam's links to terror as far back as 1992.

So how are you going to avoid explaining this Al Gore video? Then again, we have established that you will go to great lengths to excuse and justify Al-Qaeda actions.

What has Clinton's bombing of Iraq got to do with al-Qaeda links to Saddam's Iraq?

er..that Clinton was concerned about Saddam's terror ties, which Gore was talking about since 1992. Pay attention, kiddo.

Lastly, you were too cowardly to answer my simple question :

If you disagree with the course taken, what are your better ideas for winning the War against Al-Qaeda and similar groups of terrorists?

You can't even answer simple questions, ignore solid sources (including video) that prove you to be wrong while simultaneously providing no sources of your own, and yet have to lie that I delete messages rather than admit to suffering a painfully visible defeat. My god, how do you even function out in the real world?

[John Bull]

Dave, you don't appear to know what ad hominem is? Here's an example: try putting down your "chicks with guns" magazine, read around, maybe some latin terms & try to overcome your obvious military brain-washing to make a point. Maybe those loose-zippered women you're so fascinated with, will like you a bit more if you do.

***

I always find it undermines the perpetrator's arguments, dumbs down the debate & feels a bit grubby, even GK doesn't usually employ it. Occasionally it's just too hard to resist though isn't it?

Watch this one get deleted by GK.

[John Bull]

"I have not deleted anything at all in ages" again reinforces my point that you do delete comments. You apparently use it as a tactic to hide 'profanity' yet surely if a contributor starts using profanity or calling names, they have lost & the best way to show that is to leave their comments up in full? I know I am happy to have everyone of my comments on show forever more.
We're all adults here, so deleting comments is obviously for a more insidious reason than profanity GK?

No, I am not defending Saddam but merely highlighting your moral dualism when it comes to the US inflicting deaths on a population against indigenous dictators inflicting deaths on a population.
So it's some how fine if people die by American hands in your eyes?

You cling so preciously to your beliefs, it's hard to fathom how clearly the no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda has to be stated for you to admit you are wrong. I admit I cannot encapsulate what the extensively researched, expertly verified & internationally agreed upon reports contain in an effort to make you see my point.
Most people have however woken up to the fact that they were deceived, but if you know better than the CIA who "confirmed...that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two [Saddam & al-Qaeda]" then be sure to correct me.
Do you know better than the Senate & the CIA?

A 10 minute youtube clip is evidence of Saddam links to some terrorist conspiracies that were concieved by an opposition politician in 1992, fully 15 years ago? This is one year after the first Gulf War; don't you think that the situation changed in that time & up to 9/11?
I have no interest in explaining & re-interpreting events from 15 years ago to fit the framework, at all costs, of my beliefs as you apparently do, but how does this dated clip prove a link between Saddam & al-Qaeda?

I couldn't persuade you of an alternative course of action in The War Against Terror if I typed solidly for the next week, that much is obvious! There are too many ambiguities & grey areas for someone like you to even begin to understand, let alone absorb & build upon.

What solid sources have you provided other than a 15 year old video clip? I provided mention of a Senate report compiled with CIA intelligence along with paraphrased thoughts of some of the generals on the ground in Iraq. And you have also admitted to deleting messages, it's there for all to see...at least it is at the moment.

[GK]

John Bull,

Quit lying that I delete comments. I certainly have not deleted any of yours. I don't need to - you demonstrate your stupidity in tremendous detail.

I realize that low-IQ leftists like you are not capable of telling the truth even if someone paid you, but this is something even other leftists don't stoop to.

1) You excuse Saddam's deliberate massacre of millions, and even to this day, refuse to acknowledge that bombs in markets, schools, etc. are from Al-Qaeda, not the us. Yet you laughably claim to be 'compassionate'.

2) The links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda go back 15 years, which is why Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted for the war.

This video clip of Al Gore shows that this was widely known to everyone since 1992. AL GORE. He was the Democratic VP for 8 years, and lmost became President in 2000, you know. This is strong proof that demolishes your argument. I provided rock-solid proof, now deal with it, loser.

I could mention that Tony Blair, Vladimir Putin, Bill Clinton, etc. also knew of Saddam's ties more recently than 1992, but if you deny the proof of even a video link, I don't see much value stating additional facts.

don't you think that the situation changed in that time & up to 9/11?

Oh yeah, it sure would make sense that Saddam's links to terrorism would thus miraculously become less by 2002, when his 1992 activities were going unchecked. Your beloved Saddam would never continue terrorism without reporting it honestly.

You are probably the 1 in a million people that gets swindled by those Nigerian scam emails, aren't you?

Meanwhile, you weakly wheeze that 'the Senate says there are no links', without providing any source. You merely 'mention' such a report as if that makes it true. Pathetic. You have lost this point as well.

3) You still dodge the simple question :

If you disagree with the course taken, what are your better ideas for winning the War against Al-Qaeda and similar groups of terrorists?

This question always trips up the anti-US crowd.

It is obvious that you want America to lose the War on Terror, as evidenced by your unwillingness to provide any constructive ideas to win it. Yet you are too cowardly to even admit your true allegiance.

Again, I restate :

You can't even answer simple questions, ignore solid sources (including video) that prove you to be wrong while simultaneously providing no sources of your own, and yet have to lie that I delete messages rather than admit to suffering a painfully visible defeat. My god, how do you even function out in the real world?

[Democrats=Homocrats=Faggots]

What an increasing magnitude of faggots we have here.

First, 'World Citizen', a faggotty name for sure.

Then, 'San Francisco Jim', a man who chooses for his name the most faggotty city in the world - a true haven of faggotism.

Lastly, 'John Bull', the most disease-laden faggot of them all. This faggot is so dumb that he will deny that the sky is blue, even if people point him straight to it (as John Bull is not 'straight' - get it? he he).

Liberalism/faggotism is rapidly being flushed down the toilet of history. It is currently clogging the toilet (John Bull(shit) is the metaphorical piece of shit here - get it? ha ha), and the progress of freedom and capitalism to Iraq will act as heterosexual drano to flush it down permanently, where it belongs. This is a brilliantly accurate analogy - ha ha ha ha.

Stupid faggots..

[Dave]

John Full of Bull,
‘You cling so preciously to your beliefs, it's hard to fathom how clearly the no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda has to be stated for you to admit you are wrong.’
You can state something all you want. It doesn’t make it true.

‘I admit I cannot encapsulate what the extensively researched, expertly verified & internationally agreed upon reports contain in an effort to make you see my point.’
That is because you have taken the reports out of context. You should know that the CIA and Senate rarely straight up lie. Mis-perception is much more effective at keeping the enemy from reading our media, and interpreting it. Think about it. The senate and CIA know quite a bit. What you need to remember is that the dumbest of them is smarter then you. I say this because with your mind set, you are obviously unable to find the truth mixed up through out many multi-national points of view as I will further point upon below.

‘Most people have however woken up to the fact that they were deceived, but if you know better than the CIA who "confirmed...that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two [Saddam & al-Qaeda]" then be sure to correct me.’
Note the key phrase -‘No evidence of Operational Co-Operation’. Think about it. This statement means (or at the bear minimum implies), two completely different organizations not co-operating to complete an operation. Now let me ask you this- If a rich actor buys thousands of dollars in drugs, then is he responsible for the dealer using that money to go buy a gun, and shoot someone who looked at him wrong? I posed this question to you because this is precisely what happened. A rich dictator bought a product from a terrorist cell at some point in time. The terrorist cell then takes the money, and goes to kill innocent people because they are too cowardly to outright fight, and that is a strong mans only weakness. So even though the CIA and Senate said that they never operated together( the English version of the above stated issue), they never said that one never provided funding for another in one way shape or form.

‘A 10 minute youtube clip is evidence of Saddam links to some terrorist conspiracies that were conceived by an opposition politician in 1992, fully 15 years ago? This is one year after the first Gulf War; don't you think that the situation changed in that time & up to 9/11?I have no interest in explaining & re-interpreting events from 15 years ago to fit the framework, at all costs, of my beliefs as you apparently do, but how does this dated clip prove a link between Saddam & al-Qaeda?’
Once again you misinterpret events and do not take cultural differences into account. When we ground Saddams army into nothingness back in Desert Storm, not only was he left with virtually nothing, but worse yet, his image to his people was on shaky ground, and he needed to rebuild fast. Oil being their main export was a viable source of income. More so because by destroying Oil wells in Kuwait, he had successfully made a world wide perception that the price of oil would then sky rocket. Now he had the money, but lacked the resources. All those tanks and weaponry had to come from someplace. If not the terrorists, then were? So obviously there is a link, you are just to blind to see it that’s all. And has the situation changed in the last 15 years? No, because Saddam still had to find arms dealers and place to stash his NBC weapons when we invaded. They were indeed there, but like I posted earlier, ‘With worldwide ties and over 6,000 square miles of desert, it is not that hard to hide anything’. Think about it and get back to me.

[John Bull]

GK,
Let's back up here, as you seem confused. I stated that you delete the occasional comment & you readily admitted that you have done in the past, ergo, you do delete comments. Why would I need to lie about something you have admitted to? You said it's for profanity, I refute that.

Again let's re-state so you can clear your head. Nowhere did I excuse Saddam 'massacring millions' as you state, I just noted what is self-evident, that a great deal of sectarian violence was unleashed by the invasion. This is one of the main reasons for the 'surge' policy!

To digress, it could even be argued that Saddam's "millions" were as a result of his invasion of sovereign countries in an effort to control more of the oil in the region.

Again I'll restate that there is a wealth of sources which categorically states that there was "no evidence of ties between Saddam & al-Qaeda". Because I know you have limited faculties I'll help you out, although it is astoundingly easy to find evidence that upsets your blinkered worldview. You will also find links to the Senate reports, 9/11 Commission reports, CIA comments, etc. on the link I have provided.

Even Dave can acknowledge the facts in those reports; I have more respect for him as he refutes them, at least he doesn't deny them. It is though, a well-known psychological pathology that people will ignore all evidence to arguments they hold dear.

The clip, hmmm, this is rock solid proof is it? What about this rock solid proof: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction." So claimed Al Gore in an August 7 [2003] speech. Again, easy to find.
How do you explain Gore's comments here?

Why would I have a better plan for winning this war? I happily admit that I don't, that's why I'm not a politician! Do you deny my freedom to even have an opinion on it? I am a fervent defender of the freedoms of the western world, including my right to express an opinion, so why would I want to see the US fail? I abhor loss of life, is this the same as wanting the US to fail?

[John Bull]

Hey homophobe, you are of course aware that it's well-documented in studies, that those who exhibit the most homophobia are those that are most aroused by homosexual images.
I would imagine though that being cooped up in barracks at close-quarters, in hot & sweaty weather, with a lot of great fighting guys on hazardous duty tours, would make you somewhat confused orientation-wise: heck you really care for those guys, so it's understandable, but honestly, less of the hating, it's not healthy.

[John Bull]

Hey Dave, I guess it took you approximately 47 minutes to write your last post. Either that or you think I was born yesterday?

At least you are more intellectually honest than GK. You refuse to take the evidence on good faith, & have an opinion on why the evidence is presented as it is, which I entirely respect, although I obviously disagree.

[GK]

John Bull,

Why would I delete comments from someone who is so easily beaten and so unable to answer simple questions.

1) I provided proof of Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda and other terror groups. Period. You did not address my points about many prominent Democrats believing the same for many years. Plus, you did not have the courage to admit to the existence of Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Abbas, or the Salman Pak training camp. The 9/11 commission report is ONLY about 9/11, not the myriad of other attacks and activities worldwide (Duh!).

Why do you continue to run from the fact that US policy to remove Saddam for his terrorist ties/WMD programs was official US policy since 1998. Have you ever heard of the 1998 'Iraq Liberation Act'? Did you know that 1998 is before Bush was President?

Again Al-Qaeda is MUCH more than just one person (OBL) and one attack (9/11) I think this is the crux of your tunnel vision. Saddam worked with a wide range of terrorists in Al-Qaeda and beyond. Perhaps Osama was not one of the thousands he funded and worked with.

I never claimed Saddam had ties to 9/11. Al-Qaeda is far, far more than just Osama and 9/11. Saddam did have involvment in the 1993 WTC bombings via Ramzi Yusuf.

I presented proof, you refuse to even acknowledge it as it punctures your Saddam-exonerating delusions. I win, you lose.

2) The running theme in all your babbling is that you can't acknowledge anything Saddam has done as bad, whether supporting Al-Qaeda terrorists since 1992, gassing his own people, invading Kuwait, etc. You also cannot seem to admit that innocent deaths in the US are caused by terrorist, not by US soldiers killing innocents (as you claim). Your reluctance to condemn virtually any terrorist is becoming more prominent.

3) Why would I have a better plan for winning this war?

Then what business do you have criticizing current actions? Why does anything you say have any value, other than to recite dogma that you memorize, but deflates with simple proof (that I provide and you flee from). Sure, you have the freedom to advertise your ignorance. I have to freedom to pulverize it into increasingly finer dust.

I notice your increasing proportion of ad hominen attacks and namecalling. This is evidence of your own tacit admission of having lost this debate, and the deepening humilation and shame you are feeling for having such a stubbornly held opinon disproved so thoroughly and easily.

[wardog]

Modern Wars are simply not winnable. No major power has won a war in modern era.

[Dave]

Wardog,
Conventionally speaking you are 100% correct. However in that line of thought, very few wars have ever been won. One war spurns retribution. At the very least, leaves hard feelings, etc. Sometime later, the country that was conquered has rose back up to start again. This is not my opinion but historical fact. To say a 'modern war is simply not winnable', is in the eyes of the beholder. Define winning a war. This in and of itself is a highly debated topic among today's leading historians, and I have yet to see a decisive answer. The closest answer that I personally agree with would be this: At the conclusion of the fighting, peace is made, and maintained on both sides for the good of both powers involved. This is possible, but to have it accomplished, needs understanding on both sides of the fence.

Given the culture of the opposing forces involved, this is possible, but as I have hinted to in my previous postings, the US needs to be more stubborn then the terrorists to win it.

What makes terrorism so hard to combat, is the fact that they play on the emotions of fear, a twisted outlook on justice and retribution, and to never play by the rules. They are masters of subversion, and undeniably good at what they do.

Now that I have gotten this far, I feel then need to add a personal frustration of mine. Why are we the only ones who follow the Geneva Conventions as best as we can? Furthermore, how can people call themselves Americans, then have the audacity to criticize our troops and government for 'going to far?'
These people torture, capture and behead, kill and threaten innocents on a daily basis, and much much worse. They disguise themselves as non-combatants, attack our troops, then send a video into CNN showing a troop shooting what appears to be a civilian, but had conveniently dropped his weapon right before the camera zooms in. And of course they leave out the footage of a troop screaming because he just had a leg blown off by an IED that was set off by one of these disguised menaces.
Then you have these 'peace rallies' held by a bunch of college kids who have never lived anywhere on their own save the college campus and mommy and daddies house, saying that the troops are the 'killers of the innocent'. What is worse, is that these same college students in many cases receive extra credit from their professors for going to these rallies! This is a very sickening event that is just as disgusting as two veterans getting charged for tearing down a mexican flag placed above the American flag on US soil (which is a crime itself)! This country needs to place its liberalistic bulls*** behind, and recover the it's self-worth that our forefathers fought so hard for. I tell everyone the truth, any man who condemns this war (started by an unprovoked attack killing not armed troops, but innocent civilians), and shows 'understanding and sympathy' for those who kill our innocents and troops alike, are guilty of subversion, and should be placed in prison. Sure the US has the 'freedom of speech', but this has not only gone to far, but has been abused to the point where it is threatening to rip this country apart from the inside out.

[SanFranciscoJim]

Which America-hating, leftist extremist made the following remarks?

"There has been a glaring, unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders," he told a group of military reporters, according to a copy of his remarks.

"America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve 'victory' in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism," he said.

Without mentioning President George W. Bush by name, he called the president's troop-escalation "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war."

"There is no question America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said.

He aimed his sharpest attacks at the White House National Security Council, headed during his Iraq tenure by now-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "Our National Security Council has been a catastrophic failure," he said, blaming the council for adopting a strategy that overly relied on the military and failed to effectively mobilize the government.

"America has not been fully committed to win this war," he said. "Partisan politics have hindered this war effort."

Sanchez said military commanders on the ground would continue to make progress in Iraq, providing time in which a "grand strategy" could be developed. But he predicted the effort would be wasted and in the meantime U.S. troops "will continue to die."

He urged that the U.S. force presence be quickly reduced "given the lack of a grand strategy." But the United States had no choice but to stay in Iraq, given the prospects of regional instability if it withdrew suddenly, he said.

"There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope," he said.

Can you guess who said that?

[Dave]

SF Jim,
Ex-3 star general Sanchez. I do not know where you are going with this though SF Jim. You are either setting up GK to agree with you then play the 'but he is a general who opposes the war' card, or you genuinely mean what you say. Either way his comments mean nothing. There is a reason he is 'former' pentagon brass.
I have listened to, and read his little speech. Some of it I agree with, and some I do not. I shall explain.
The war started in Iraq for many reason. WMD’s, oil, the spread of democracy, and even to crush it’s support of terrorism. I believe that each one of these played a role in why we went to Iraq, and that each one was in fact a real reason. I think I have already talked about this before in a previous comment, but if not, just let me know, and I will explain further. But I will continue on.
Iraq has never been a stable country since recorded history. It has a long history of forming alliances with other countries to better their position. The government there has never been stable either as it is overthrown just about every 50 or so odd years. In follow up to many of these overthrows, the country experiences a brief period of peace before going back to fighting. Just read the history of this country for the facts, and leave the opinionated BS out, and you will see just how messed up it is.
Sanchez was familiar with the country and it’s history, and probably saw no room for change, making him a ‘History is doomed to repeat itself’. In that line of thought, what he said was absolutely correct. However when foreign powers got involved, and more influence from other countries showed itself, the country began to shift a little to adapt towards a new mindset. This has always been true of any war. Moving on.
Within the next hundred or so years, there is a good chance that Iraq will yet again, ride the wheel of history, and turn on itself again. However in the next 1-10 years, there is a really good chance that they will enjoy learning what it means to be free, and living a more open life with less fear from their government. However the end of that peace will be triggered by an event that will take its toll on the Iraqi people. War, plague, famine, who knows? Anyway, when this event happens, the people will again know fear. And once again, there will be those who will take advantage of it, and plummet the country back into war. This is not my opinion but a historical fact riding the exact same pattern it always has. US influence or not.
Many people berate the US and claim that Iraq has fallen because of us. The truth of the matter is that it was never stable to began with. It has always been a country ruled by fear, where the strong would prey on the weak. What the US did was step in and give it a fighting chance at something it has never truly had before. This new point of view may leave a lasting impact, or it may not. But the truth remains that the US is doing a truly noble (albeit a little stupid thing). True people are dying on a daily basis. But no more then what was already. For the world to blame the US for trying to free Iraq, would be the equivalent to the US blaming England for making us fight for our country. In truth, there is a lesson here in life my friend. This lesson is simple, and can be understood by all- If you want something bad enough, you will fight hard to obtain it. The more tenacious and powerful fighter will win. Just remember- be careful what you fight for as you may just receive it. When you fight, make sure that you know what to do with what you fight for, lest it turn on you later.
The one thing that Sanchez is partly correct on, is that there is no end in sight (in reference to the war). The war will end with a tentative peace in the Iraq area. But as soon as soon one of the events happens as I discussed above, will plummet to war again. Has been that way throughout history, and will certainly not stop now.
GK, what do you think?

[GK]

Dave,

GK, what do you think?

It turns out that the media misreported Sanchez's words, and he is not quite as anti-US as the fifth-column was hoping.

So SF Jim has made a fool of himself for the umpteenth time.

Those who attempt to present the 2% of Generals that oppose the war (which Sanchez is not among, as per the above) as the majority view, while ignoring the 98% that support it, are silly people who don't assess facts dispassionately, and cherry-pick even the thinnest wisps in order to confirm their ignorant, anti-American narratives.

SF Jim has openly stated that he does not have a problem with MoveOn's 'Betray US' ad. Nevermind that most Democrats did condemn it, and General Petraeus is a non-political figure who is currently in charge of the war.

Regarding freedom in Iraq, after several retrenchments, the tide towards liberty is now irreversible. Muslims across the world have cooled in their opposition to the war due to the real gains they see in Iraq. In fact, the Kurdish Areas have already become what we had hoped they would. The goal now is really just to get the rest of Iraq on par with the Kurdish areas.

Anti-US war protesters are significantly behind the curve here.

US occupation will certainly continue for many years, just as we still have troops in Germany and Japan for 62 years, South Korea for 54 years, Bosnia for 10 years, and Afghanistan for 6 years.

[John Bull]

Exactly my point again GK, you don't need to delete posts from "easily beaten" people, just those that aren't. I've seen it with my own eyes & that more than all the witless comments makes me wonder why I bother coming back.

But anyway let's rehash again: what proof did you provide of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda? All I saw was a 15 year old movie clip & a scatter of names. In anyone's book but yours that is not evidence, it's conjecture, so provide your readers with a link to an objectively verifiable & credible report which states that Saddam had firm links to al-Qaeda & their attacks.

This is quite tedious but if you even took the time to look up the names you glibly provide you will see that:
Abu Nidal - palestinian terrorist, murdered in Iraq by Saddam's government.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - responsible for post invasion attacks in Iraq.
Abu Abbas - palestinian terrorist.
Your alleged terrorist-traning camp at Salman Pak is no such thing as established by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence...unless you know better than the CIA?
(Maybe you can't tell us as it would blow your cover?)
Operation Desert Fox - failure to comply with UN resolutions, not an attack on terrorists (because there were none there!).

Quite an embarrassment when your 'proof' is so easily seen for what it is: rhetorical hyperbole with no veracity whatsoever. You even partially acknowledge your confusion & the complete lack of any link between Saddam & al-Qaeda: Perhaps Osama was not one of the thousands he funded and worked with.
Perhaps so because Osama is a Saudi billionaire in his own right, with money made from exporting oil to the Western world: did you know this?
If thousands of terrorists had been funded by the Saddam government surely there would be more evidence especially as his regime has now been toppled? Why is there a lack of evidence for your arguments, indeed all the objective investigations show the opposite: no links to terrorist organisations & categorically no links to al-Qaeda

I notice that you have dropped the Al Gore video clip as proof after I provided a quote (11 years after the video clip). Can you explain why you have dropped the argument, because you felt the video clip was crucially important in previous posts?

Which parts of my argument have I memorized? How could I have done if I have spent most of my time exposing the "evidence" you have provided in your previous postings; by its very nature debate is reactive, incompatible to memorization: but why am I even having to point this out?

So you managed to look up ad hominem, please show me where I initiated an ad hominem argument.

This is all a pity because I initally commented to admit I was wrong in expecting the surge policy to be another mistake (on top of so many). I have every right to express my opinion & criticize current actions, both as a free person in a democracy & especially as a taxpayer who pays for the war. Do you seek to deny my rights?

Does the vision of your perfect world deny dissenters a voice if that dissent runs contrary to your opinion? I think that is at the crux of your defensiveness & blinkered world view & why you react so badly to so many comments posted here. Sad.