I don't hate Dave Patraeus..Follow

I don't think Al-Sadr is actually that bad.

Me either, but he's Iran's man to fill the void if we leave, too, so it seems just a matter of process how he ends up in power.

Assuming we don't rig the election, which isn't by any means a safe bet.

True. But really, we didn't have much of a plan to help get things put together once we were done taking out "the bad guy." A little planning could've saved us all this trouble.

Unfortunately, Cowboy Bush only wanted to see Saddam toppled. Doesn't seem he much cared what happened after that.

Both little Bush and his father screwed this one up big time. Papa Bush should have finished the job the first time

Think about this for a good two or three minutes.

What? Like break stuff up and kill people on an industrial scale.....that'll help no end for sure!


Perhaps putting Bush and his friends inc T. Blair and all the others on trial for crimes against humanity, and then locking them all up forever and ever, would make the Iraqis so happy that they would all work together to get themselves together and make a happy country .........

We talking about the same Al-Sadr? The guy who's just now realizing that his attempt to gain control via his militia has failed miserably, but has now marginalized him so much with the rest of the political leaders that his only choice at this point is to disband it and hope he can get some leftover scraps?


Al-Sadr was playing his card on the hopes that the US would actually have pulled our troops out in 2006 as the Dems demanded. When that didn't happen, he's had to reverse himself just to keep from being the next casualty. I don't see him taking power anytime soon. He can retain a position at the table if he plays his cards right, but that's about it...

article I'm quoting

If you have better information than that, let us know.

Any "successful" outcome in Iraq would probably have to involve negotiating with the Iranians, which is very unlikely given what we in the U.S. believe about them and people from the middle east in general.

And misrepresentations and oversimplifications are what got us into this mess in the first place. "We" were the good guys, "they" were the bad guys, and we needed to kick some *** to show the world how tough we were. It was all about our wounded pride. The smart thing would have been never to have attacked Iraq in the first place.

You seem like you think that somehow we'll be able to create some outcome favorable to us. I don't think that's true. We're both guessing. In a year, or ten, we'll see which way it comes out.

Lol. That article spins some truths and half-truths and makes some pretty amazing claims.

It's correct that there are some questionable aspects to the ISCI and the Badr brigade, including their ties to Iran. There are several problems though. The degree of ties to Iran depend on who you talk to. They do get some support "from Iran", but not specifically from the Iranian government. The ISCI (in its former incarnation) was made up of people who fled Saddam's government in Iraq and/or defected during their conflict with Iran. It's not so much that they are pro-Iranian, but they were opposed to the Baathist regime in Iraq and Iran was a convenient ally at the time.

The degree to which Iran has control over them is in doubt.


And that's ignoring the more obvious point that was kinda glanced by in the first sentence of the quote you provided. Malaki is *not* a member of that party. His party, the Islamic Dawa Party, is part of a broad "alliance" of parties formed after the last election, but is opposed to exactly the sort of Iranian influence that concerns people about the ISCI. It's incredibly misleading to simply define them as being in an alliance with him and imply that his policies and actions are controlled by them.



The bigger (and more relevant point) isn't about Iranian influence on either group. The point is that Malaki's government was and is the elected government. There has been progress with regard to disbanding militias across the board, and if you've been following the political situation you'd realize that pretty much the only reason any of the various militias in the member parties of the United Iraqi Alliance are still around is the fear that without them, Al-Sadr's militia would be able to run roughshod over the country and take over. By using military operations to force Al-Sadr to disband his militia (which appears to be working and very close to happening), it's reasonable to expect the remaining remnants of other militias to disappear pretty quickly as well.


He's been essentially holding the entire process hostage. He was banking on US withdrawal. Since that didn't happen, he's now realized that gambit failed and he's finally joining the rest of the political factions at the table (as was about to happen back in late 2005 right until the Dems began demanding withdrawal). So we're 2.5 years later then we should have been in this process. But it wasn't Bush's policies that caused that.


The current shifts should be seen as a very good thing. Hopefully, the Dems wont find another way to ***** it up for us...

Christ, you're a tool.





In pretty much every one of those quotes that you linked to, someone from the Whitehouse was saying that Iraq was/is a (insert word from above [here]) 'threat' to the USA.

Each and every statement was, at best, designed to stir up fear amongst the potential victims (thats you) of Iraqs 'evil intent', or at worst a bald-faced lie.

A goodly section of the worlds population knew that from the start. most of the rest of the world has since caught up.

And then theres you. Still tying it in knots in your own head to try and justify to yourself why invading a third world country and slaughtering its people, and destroying most of its remaining infrastructure, and creating the right-royal balls-up that is Iraq today, was such a great and noble pursuit.

If you are unable to understand the English language and its uses in politics, thats your problem.

I would like to thinkl that most people here stopped believing your idiotic justifications for Bush's war long ago, and now just find your ramblings mildly amusing.

But really, maybe its time to stop lying to youself.

That and the fact that they never referred to Iraq's WMDs as an "imminent threat" to the US. Not once. Despite massive attempts to make it appear so.

Did they say "mushroom cloud"? Because I'm not sure if you're aware, but that's worth 37,000 "imminent threat"s.

Seriously, I know the only refuge you have when you're getting your *** kicked here every day is to attempt to redefine language, but arguing that there was no case made for WMD being an immediate threat fro Iraq is Felliniesque absurdity.

You beat me to it. Damn, I need to get up earlier.

Not all synonyms carry the exact same connotation in English.


If that was the case, then why didn't the anti-war folks attack the Bush administration for claiming that Iraq's WMDs were a "forthcoming threat"?


Could it possibly be because the word "imminent" carries with it a specific connotation that is stronger then say "forthcoming"? I think so...

One would then conclude that the reason the anti-war folks choose to use the phrase "imminent threat" has everything to do with marrying that to their argument that since the WMD components and plans rocket bodies and whatnot that were found in Iraq were not assembled and usable, that they could not correctly be called an "imminent threat". Um... Which is why it's incredibly relevant to point out that the word used was not actually "imminent".


You can't have it both ways. Either the word imminent carries with it some greater assumption of immediacy then say "forthcoming" or "emerging", or it doesn't. You can't both play on the fact that the word "imminent" implies that the threat was of an immediate nature, and argue that words like "ongoing", "emerging", and "continuing" are synonyms with "imminent" and therefore mean exactly the same thing.




No. The phrases were used specifically to indicate the exact nature of the threat from Iraq. Specifically, a threat that is present and growing and may someday hurt us. See. "Emerging", and "ongoing" and "growing" all carry that connotation. "Imminent" means that we could be hit at any moment.

See the difference?



I'm well aware how words are manipulated for political purposes. That's exactly what I'm talking about in fact. When a group of people take quotes from someone using one word, and then change the word used to one that is technically a synonym, but which carries a very different connotation, and then attacks the other person on that changed meaning, they are manipulating words for political reasons.

Which is exactly the point I'm making. The anti-war folks invented the phrase "imminent threat" in order to strengthen their own argument. Get it?

There you go again.....


If I remember rightly (and i do, 'cos i was one of them), it was us 'anti-war' folk who were adamant that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat.

Anyway, how is the weather in history revisionist world?

They claimed it was a threat. A 'present' threat. An 'immediate' threat. A 'real' threat. Etc.....






Why are you so thick, that you don't understand that saying 'is a threat', is to all intents and purposes, exactly the same as saying that the threat is 'imminent', 'present', 'real' etc, etc?


Your argument is one step the same as saying GW never invaded 'Iraq' 'cos he always pronounces it Eye-rak.


And people got worked up about Clintons use of the word 'yes', ffs!