Just Bitchen, Shias are now eighting Shias in Iraq

AssHatZombie said:
Yes. That's all i got. Our involvement shouldn't be part of the conversation. That's ridiculous. Set me straight.
Click to expand...
The "six more months" crap is what I was talking about. That's stupid and he knows I never supported that stuff. He posts it because he is being disingenuous and pretending that the thread is in a vacuum and that past posts with my opinion on that subject didn't exist. It seems that another likes to do that as well when it suits him. It has nothing to do with what is currently happening with the government in Iraq taking on the shia, never have I said "six more months will fix it" it's simply disingenuous to suggest I have.
 
Damocles said:
The "six more months" crap is what I was talking about. That's stupid and he knows I never supported that stuff. He posts it because he is being disingenuous and pretending that the thread is in a vacuum and that past posts with my opinion on that subject didn't exist. It seems that another likes to do that as well when it suits him.
Click to expand...

Oh, does it seem so? Don't be coy, damo.:)

What I mostly got was your "our involvement shouldnt' be part of the discussion" angle. That's my focus of criticism toward you on this thread. Care to address that?
 
It sounds like the US is heavily involved in the fighting. This has little to do with "testing the resolve of Maliki and his army.":

BAGHDAD, March 27 -- U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army's AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.

The clashes suggested that American forces were being drawn more deeply into a broad offensive that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched in the southern city of Basra on Tuesday, saying death squads, criminal gangs and rogue militias were the targets. The Mahdi Army of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite rival of Maliki, appeared to have taken the brunt of the attacks; fighting spread to many southern cities and parts of Baghdad.
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032700781.html?hpid=topnews
 
Damocles said:
It isn't us. I can't see why that would be part of this conversation.

I'm hoping it shows that they have enough for us to get out of there. How 'bout you?

Seriously, this is the Iraqi government doing something that it thinks will improve life in Iraq. Hopefully they are successful at doing just that.
Click to expand...

Except for this. did you post this?
 
Damocles said:
It isn't us. I can't see why that would be part of this conversation.

I'm hoping it shows that they have enough for us to get out of there. How 'bout you?

Seriously, this is the Iraqi government doing something that it thinks will improve life in Iraq. Hopefully they are successful at doing just that.
Click to expand...


I'm hoping it shows that they have enough for us to get out of there. How 'bout you?

Sorry, I'm too well read and informed on Iraq to fall for the "we're just doing a peacekeeping mission" drivel.

It's a civil war. Our troops are involved in it. The iraqi "army" is just another shia-dominated faction, fighting against other sunni and shia factions. It's all about the oil. The malaki faction is favorable to allowing us to keep permanent bases in iraq, and to outsource some of their oil resources to development by multinationals. The malaki faction knows their heads would be chopped off the moment we left.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Except for this. did you post this?
Click to expand...
Where does, "I'm hoping that it makes it so we can leave quickly." say, "Let's not talk about us."?

It's not in there, you are projecting what you think my opinion is onto the post. Please note that it was quoting another post and was answering that one where they pretended that only the US forces were doing this and that those people would be "uncomfortable" giving up weapons to an occupying force. I was pointing out that the driving force behind this is not the US, and it was not the US asking them to give up their weapons in this case. I had to post quickly and couldn't really get in depth because I am at work and have limited time. I figure that people can take experience with me in the past and fill a bit of stuff in without pretending they haven't read my opinions on Iraq in the past.
 
Cypress said:
I'm hoping it shows that they have enough for us to get out of there. How 'bout you?

Sorry, I'm too well read and informed on Iraq to fall for the "we're just doing a peacekeeping mission" drivel.

It's a civil war. Our troops are involved in it. The iraqi "army" is just another shia-dominated faction, fighting against other sunni and shia factions. It's all about the oil. The malaki faction is favorable to allowing us to keep permanent bases in iraq, and to outsource some of their oil resources to development by multinationals. The malaki faction knows their heads would be chopped off the moment we left.
Click to expand...
Where did I say we were on a "peacekeeping mission"? You are being deliberately dishonest here. It is BS to say that I ever suggested that was the case. It is, in fact, totally wrong in every way.

I pointed out that in this case, forces that just months ago couldn't do anything are conducting, IMO ill advised, attacks on al-Sadr.
 
Damocles said:
Where does, "I'm hoping that it makes it so we can leave quickly." say, "Let's not talk about us."?

It's not in there, you are projecting what you think my opinion is onto the post. Please note that it was quoting another post and was answering that one where they pretended that only the US forces were doing this and that those people would be "uncomfortable" giving up weapons to an occupying force. I was pointing out that the driving force behind this is not the US, and it was not the US asking them to give up their weapons in this case.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to the "it's not us. I don't know why that would even be part of the conversation." Our presence there is why they are doing this. Nobody was pretending anything. Overall, you were trying to deny our presence has an impact on this situation. That's disingenuous.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I'm referring to the "it's not us. I don't know why that would even be part of the conversation." Our presence there is why they are doing this. Nobody was pretending anything. Overall, you were trying to deny our presence has an impact on this situation. That's disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Again, I posted short because I have limited time. I have already spent too much time on this.

I figured that past posts on the subject could fill you in, instead people pretend that this is the only time we have ever talked on Iraq and attempt to fill in the blanks with Bush's or somebody's opinion on the subject rather than what I have said. It is disingenuous to pretend you haven't heard my opinions on undeclared wars, including ones that I actually did post in this very thread.

We shouldn't be in Iraq. The "it isn't us" was directly in answer to the suggestion that the US was asking for their weapons when it is, in fact, the Iraqi government that was. Now you can ignore that again and pretend that I meant what I never said and didn't suggest as I clearly quoted what I was answering, or you can move on.
 
Damocles said:
Again, I posted short because I have limited time. I have already spent too much time on this.

I figured that past posts on the subject could fill you in, instead people pretend that this is the only time we have ever talked on Iraq and attempt to fill in the blanks with Bush's or somebody's opinion on the subject rather than what I have said. It is disingenuous to pretend you haven't heard my opinions on undeclared wars, including ones that I actually did post in this very thread.

We shouldn't be in Iraq. The "it isn't us" was directly in answer to the suggestion that the US was asking for their weapons when it is, in fact, the Iraqi government that was. Now you can ignore that again and pretend that I meant what I never said and didn't suggest as I clearly quoted what I was answering, or you can move on.
Click to expand...

But WE are the controllers of the puppet regime. So it IS us, by proxy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But WE are the controllers of the puppet regime. So it IS us, by proxy.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Plus we are making an observable presence with them. Stupid, IMO. All of it is. It is just more stupid added on to previous stupid. I doubt that Patreas is the one that suggested this, in fact it sounds so stupid that it had to have come from higher up.
 
I think the best way to defend against terrorism is to not allow any more immigration of people who believe in Islamic theocracy. BUt NOOOOOOO. That would actually work.
 
Damocles said:
It sounds like they are providing air support, hence my suggesting that it is "bad strategery" in one of my earliest posts in the thread.
Click to expand...


Air support?

U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.

Four U.S. Stryker armored vehicles were seen in Sadr City by a Washington Post correspondent, one of them engaging Mahdi Army militiamen with heavy fire. The din of American weapons, along with the Mahdi Army's AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, was heard through much of the day. U.S. helicopters and drones buzzed overhead.
Click to expand...


This is the Stryker:

SoldierTech_Stryker2-3.jpg


It doesn't fly.
 
Dungheap said:
Air support?




This is the Stryker:

SoldierTech_Stryker2-3.jpg


It doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Did you read later posts? I don't think you did. I'll catch you up.

"We are showing a rather large presence with them, that is stupid, more stupid added to stupid." (paraphrasing one of my comments.)

Just so you'll know...
 
Damo's funny when he gets rattled!

You're pretending... I said.. but really... you're purposefully forgetting ..... and pretending ... and disingenuous when I really meant.... and you know I really meant... but you purposefully mislead.... when I know you knew I mean what I .......DISINGENUOUS RUBBISH!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top