N Korean situation: How's Obama doing?

Dixie said:
First of all, I don't know who Centre for Strategic and International Studies are, or their motivations behind their guesswork. My initial initial statement, was that the insurgency was comprised of former Saddam cronies and terrorists, and most of the terrorists were foreign. I'll stick with that.

But how did this thread get diverted into another rehash of Iraq? Maineman, since you've returned, this seems to be emerging into a pattern. Why can't we keep the conversation centered on North Korea and how to deal with that problem... which is a completely different problem with a completely different solution?

Now, I realize, some of you pinheads are just always going to be this way, for the rest of your lives, you are going to emotively genuflect toward Iraq any time war is mentioned. I get, that you're going to take every opportunity to drag the dead horses back out and beat them one more time. But honestly, we can't function as a nation like this.
Click to expand...

Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity was: doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
 
Dixie said:
First of all, I don't know who Centre for Strategic and International Studies are, or their motivations behind their guesswork. My initial initial statement, was that the insurgency was comprised of former Saddam cronies and terrorists, and most of the terrorists were foreign. I'll stick with that.

But how did this thread get diverted into another rehash of Iraq? Maineman, since you've returned, this seems to be emerging into a pattern. Why can't we keep the conversation centered on North Korea and how to deal with that problem... which is a completely different problem with a completely different solution?

Now, I realize, some of you pinheads are just always going to be this way, for the rest of your lives, you are going to emotively genuflect toward Iraq any time war is mentioned. I get, that you're going to take every opportunity to drag the dead horses back out and beat them one more time. But honestly, we can't function as a nation like this.
Click to expand...

So you'll stick with you initial unsubstantiated statement and offer nothing that would confirm it? Why am I not surprised?
 
Steelplate said:
Obama was duly elected President and Commander in Chief and has the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his advisors....you, on the other hand are just a internet tough guy hiding behind his computer screen demanding that we should send Americans to their deaths when you yourself are too cowardly to serve yourself and have absolutely no skin in the game....people will die...Obama will have to write letters to families, and you'll still be a little douche on a message board.
Click to expand...

For what thats worth, Bush was duly elected President and Commander in Chief and had the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his advisors too.....
He also did not use the US military without the advice and consent of Congress......
 
NOVA said:
For what thats worth, Bush was duly elected President and Commander in Chief and had the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his advisors too.....
He also did not use the US military without the advice and consent of Congress......
Click to expand...

Really? You sure about that? You know this how? Are you privy to classified information? Perhaps this administration is just more transparent than the last. The truth is, you have not a fucking clue as to what we do, where we do it and who knows about it.
 
Thing1 said:
You made the initial claim, dumbo.

And it's a hairsplitting claim. The idea is that war is completely unpredictable and thus should be avoided at all costs, and used only as a last resort. Your counter to that was that the Iraq War was really over in 18 days - even thought fighting went on for over 10 years.

Who gives a flap who we were fighting with? Fighting is fighting - unforeseen consequences are just that.

You're an idiot.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with the bolded above, but here's the thing, with NK it would be a last resort which has been avoided at all costs. How many years have we been trying diplomacy and sanctions, and talks, and bribery, and pay-offs, and ignoring them, and they are still threatening to nuke our allies? I'm sorry, but a NK nuclear detonation over Japan is an unacceptable cost. We simply can't wait until he goes through with his threats to act, we should take some measure to prevent him from doing what he threatened.

I will stick by what I said, our actual conflict with Saddam's army in Iraq, took about 18 days and we had very few casualties. It is a gross misnomer to claim the remainder of the ten years we were there, that we were "at war with Iraq" while at that same time, we were training Iraqi military and security forces, rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, protecting elections, providing security for government officials, and carrying out operations with Iraqi soldiers. We were fighting an insurgency, and we can nitpick back and forth about the composition of that insurgency, the one thing they pretty much all had in common was, opposition to western style democratic government in Iraq. Whether they were legitimately Iraqis, or foreign-born terrorists, is totally irrelevant. They certainly didn't comprise "the majority" in Iraq, because 70% of the population participated in those western style democratic elections.



Aoxomoxoa said:
The Coalition Provisional Authority made two disastrous decisions at the beginning of the U.S. occupation of Iraq: to vengefully drive members of the Ba'ath Party from public life and to recklessly disband the Iraqi army. These two steps alienated the formerly ruling Sunnis, created a pool of angry rebels in waiting and sparked the insurgency.

As to your question about who's Billy, how long have you been on these forums anyway?

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ation-How-s-Obama-doing&p=1197070#post1197070
Click to expand...

I've been here longer than you, Tom. The Internet hasn't changed, people still lie all the time about who they are and what they've done. I'll pose my question again to "Billy who served in Iraq" ....Didn't you find it odd that you were soldiering alongside Iraqi security forces, while still "at war with Iraq?" Was it not the least bit strange that you were helping restore power and rebuild infrastructure for "the enemy?" When you and the Iraqi Security Forces you were training, encountered insurgents, did the Iraqi Security Forces shoot at insurgents or did they turn their guns on you?

Aoxomoxoa said:
Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity was: doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
Click to expand...

Like threatening more economic sanctions on North Korea???

maineman said:
So you'll stick with you initial unsubstantiated statement and offer nothing that would confirm it? Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...

Again... Regardless of what the Center for Whatever Liberal Pinheads Have Taken Over Lately has "found" with regard to the insurgency composition, one thing they ALL had in common was the opposition to western style democratic government in Iraq.
 
Dixie said:
I actually agree with the bolded above, but here's the thing, with NK it would be a last resort which has been avoided at all costs. How many years have we been trying diplomacy and sanctions, and talks, and bribery, and pay-offs, and ignoring them, and they are still threatening to nuke our allies? I'm sorry, but a NK nuclear detonation over Japan is an unacceptable cost. We simply can't wait until he goes through with his threats to act, we should take some measure to prevent him from doing what he threatened.

I will stick by what I said, our actual conflict with Saddam's army in Iraq, took about 18 days and we had very few casualties. It is a gross misnomer to claim the remainder of the ten years we were there, that we were "at war with Iraq" while at that same time, we were training Iraqi military and security forces, rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, protecting elections, providing security for government officials, and carrying out operations with Iraqi soldiers. We were fighting an insurgency, and we can nitpick back and forth about the composition of that insurgency, the one thing they pretty much all had in common was, opposition to western style democratic government in Iraq. Whether they were legitimately Iraqis, or foreign-born terrorists, is totally irrelevant. They certainly didn't comprise "the majority" in Iraq, because 70% of the population participated in those western style democratic elections.





I've been here longer than you, Tom. The Internet hasn't changed, people still lie all the time about who they are and what they've done. I'll pose my question again to "Billy who served in Iraq" ....Didn't you find it odd that you were soldiering alongside Iraqi security forces, while still "at war with Iraq?" Was it not the least bit strange that you were helping restore power and rebuild infrastructure for "the enemy?" When you and the Iraqi Security Forces you were training, encountered insurgents, did the Iraqi Security Forces shoot at insurgents or did they turn their guns on you?



Like threatening more economic sanctions on North Korea???



Again... Regardless of what the Center for Whatever Liberal Pinheads Have Taken Over Lately has "found" with regard to the insurgency composition, one thing they ALL had in common was the opposition to western style democratic government in Iraq.
Click to expand...
http://csis.org/about-us/-brief-history

Arleigh Burke...a real liberal pinhead. When you denigrate CSIS and stick with your own unsubstantiated bullshit, you simply conform most folks' poor opinion of you. You say stupid shit and, when justifiably called on it, you NEVER admit you misspoke. Really sad.
 
maineman said:
http://csis.org/about-us/-brief-history

Arleigh Burke...a real liberal pinhead. When you denigrate CSIS and stick with your own unsubstantiated bullshit, you simply conform most folks' poor opinion of you. You say stupid shit and, when justifiably called on it, you NEVER admit you misspoke. Really sad.
Click to expand...

Did CSIS evaluate how many of the 70% who participated in national democratic elections in Iraq, were insurgents? I haven't seen any studies, but my guess would be, this is a very small number, since the insurgents were universally opposed to such elections, and attempted to kill Iraqis participating in them, as well as assassinating politicians who were seeking office.

Also... I would be very interested to see the method they used to derive their information regarding the makeup of insurgents. Did they send out a questionnaire to them? Did they canvas door to door? When some insurgent claimed to be from Iraq, did they confirm his identity and verify that he actually was from Iraq, or did they just take his word for it... because insurgents are known to lie. OR... perhaps this is just a small piece of information you've extracted for the purpose of making an irrelevant point?
 
Dixie said:
Did CSIS evaluate how many of the 70% who participated in national democratic elections in Iraq, were insurgents? I haven't seen any studies, but my guess would be, this is a very small number, since the insurgents were universally opposed to such elections, and attempted to kill Iraqis participating in them, as well as assassinating politicians who were seeking office.

Also... I would be very interested to see the method they used to derive their information regarding the makeup of insurgents. Did they send out a questionnaire to them? Did they canvas door to door? When some insurgent claimed to be from Iraq, did they confirm his identity and verify that he actually was from Iraq, or did they just take his word for it... because insurgents are known to lie. OR... perhaps this is just a small piece of information you've extracted for the purpose of making an irrelevant point?
Click to expand...

It's funny that YOU made the claim that most of the insurgents were foreigners, but maineman is the one who found the link, which you are immediately suspect of.

Why don't you back up YOUR initial claim? Too much for ya?
 
I gave you a link to a highly respected source.... And you want to find out the methodology that THEY used to determine their assessment....but you, certainly NOT anywhere near as highly respected a source as CSIS, can offer NOTHING to back up your bullshit?

I can't remember when you have ever admitted your bullshit was indeed bullshit. Not once. You just spew shit and then, when people call you on it and ask for sources, you deflect and ask THEM for sources that would support their disbelief...AND I GAVE IT TO YOU!!! And still, you can't just admit that you tossed out an unsubstantiated opinion and it turned out to be wrong. Pure comic relief.
 
NOVA said:
For what thats worth, Bush was duly elected President and Commander in Chief and had the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his advisors too.....
He also did not use the US military without the advice and consent of Congress......
Click to expand...

Yet if someone steps on a bug in Bumfuck, Egypt, it's all Obama's fault!

Dixie said:
Did CSIS evaluate how many of the 70% who participated in national democratic elections in Iraq, were insurgents? I haven't seen any studies, but my guess would be, this is a very small number, since the insurgents were universally opposed to such elections, and attempted to kill Iraqis participating in them, as well as assassinating politicians who were seeking office.

Also... I would be very interested to see the method they used to derive their information regarding the makeup of insurgents. Did they send out a questionnaire to them? Did they canvas door to door? When some insurgent claimed to be from Iraq, did they confirm his identity and verify that he actually was from Iraq, or did they just take his word for it... because insurgents are known to lie. OR... perhaps this is just a small piece of information you've extracted for the purpose of making an irrelevant point?
Click to expand...


Poor, dumb Dixie. He wouldn't see the truth if it slapped him in the face.

Dixie said:
Got a link to dispute that claim?
Click to expand...

Gotta love it. Dixie never cites sources (those voices in his head refuse) but when someone else posts something, he's demanding a source!

Here ya go, pinhead:

http://www.salon.com/2007/03/02/insurgency_3/

Describe the insurgency.

You have to be careful when you say “insurgency.” You have to distinguish between the Shiite militias and the actual insurgency, which is the Sunni groups. Most of the Shiite militia activity is not directed at the U.S., it’s directed at the Sunnis. The Sunni insurgency, meanwhile, is directed at everyone — the U.S., the Iraqi government, the militias.

The best way to divide it up is into three camps. You have Sunni nationalists, initially a large portion of the insurgency; the moderate Sunni Islamists, who use Islamic terminology and talk about establishing a government based on Sharia law; and you have the Salafists, like the group Al-Qaida in Iraq. To them, the fight is not about preserving the borders of Iraq, it’s about revolution, about rebuilding something completely new on the basis of some kind of idyllic Muslim empire.

What drives people to join the insurgency?

I’ve called up families of fighters and when I ask that question, the response is always the same: Wouldn’t you? They are extremely upset about what’s going on in Iraq. Some of them have a burning hatred for the U.S. They see the U.S. as imposing its will on their countries. Some of them have a burning desire to be a missionary and martyr for Islam. You have people who have broken out of prison and gone to fight in Iraq. It’s now a vacuum sucking in every disaffected voice in the region.

How has the insurgency evolved?

When the U.S. invasion began in 2003, it was mainly Baathists, ex-Iraqi military, and Saddam loyalists. They were Iraqi nationalists, opposed to foreign occupation, who saw Iraq as a competitor with Egypt for the control of the Arab world. It was an issue of national pride. Video recordings and communiqués were coming out from everybody who had an AK-47. But as the war dragged on, some of these groups started coalescing; others were destroyed. Only the strongest, the most hardcore, the best financed, the people with the most training, survived, despite airstrikes and the arrest of their senior leaders by the U.S. military.

Do you call the insurgents “terrorists”?

No. The nationalist insurgents have done a lot of really brutal things. But in general they are people opposed to foreign occupation. If foreign occupation were removed, they wouldn’t necessarily sit down and shake hands with Shiites. But at the end of the day, they would like to see a peaceful Iraq where Sunnis and Shiites can at least coexist with each other. Terrorists are people who set off bombs in marketplaces and deliberately kill innocent civilians for no good reason. Any suicide bombing is a terrorist act. It’s not an insurgent act. There is no military objective in it. The vast majority of suicide bombings that take place in Iraq are either the work of al-Qaida or al-Qaida-linked groups. Al-Qaida are the terrorists.
Click to expand...


Once again...Dixie farts another fail.
 
Thing1 said:
It's funny that YOU made the claim that most of the insurgents were foreigners, but maineman is the one who found the link, which you are immediately suspect of.

Why don't you back up YOUR initial claim? Too much for ya?
Click to expand...

He found a link from a "think tank" who speculates that 10% of the insurgents were foreign. This does not mean that 10% were foreign and 90% were Iraqi, and this is indisputable concrete fact. This doesn't even rise to the level of "intelligence gathering" which is known to be highly inaccurate in Iraq, it's just a think tank speculation. My argument is, it doesn't matter if they are from Iraq or from Timbuktu, they were ALL opposed to western style democratic government in Iraq.

But you see, it's more important for you pinheads to run around throwing out think tank speculations and turning them into facts that can't be disputed or questioned, and pretending that you've won an argument.
 
Dixie said:
He found a link from a "think tank" who speculates that 10% of the insurgents were foreign. This does not mean that 10% were foreign and 90% were Iraqi, and this is indisputable concrete fact. This doesn't even rise to the level of "intelligence gathering" which is known to be highly inaccurate in Iraq, it's just a think tank speculation. My argument is, it doesn't matter if they are from Iraq or from Timbuktu, they were ALL opposed to western style democratic government in Iraq.

But you see, it's more important for you pinheads to run around throwing out think tank speculations and turning them into facts that can't be disputed or questioned, and pretending that you've won an argument.
Click to expand...

But somehow, you can throw out YOUR speculations without a single source, and that's perfectly acceptable? I further would suggest that you have NOTHING other than your own baseless partisan speculation that would prove that the insurgency against America was against western style democracy and not simply Iraqis who were vehemently opposed to having an invading, conquering Armed force occupying their land against their will.
 
Steelplate said:
Obama was duly elected President and Commander in Chief and has the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his advisors....you, on the other hand are just a internet tough guy hiding behind his computer screen demanding that we should send Americans to their deaths when you yourself are too cowardly to serve yourself and have absolutely no skin in the game....people will die...Obama will have to write letters to families, and you'll still be a little douche on a message board.
Click to expand...

NOVA said:
For what thats worth, Bush was duly elected President and Commander in Chief and had the Joint Chiefs of Staff as his advisors too.....
He also did not use the US military without the advice and consent of Congress......
Click to expand...

Steelplate said:
Really? You sure about that? You know this how? Are you privy to classified information? Perhaps this administration is just more transparent than the last. The truth is, you have not a fucking clue as to what we do, where we do it and who knows about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, really....I'm absolutely sure about everything in my post.....you on the other hand are a loud-mouth idiot assuming others didn't serve and even if
they didn't you don't have a clue as to why......giving opinions that are not facts, only opinions.

The Iraq War Resolution was PASSED by the Congress....its undeniable FACT......

You're only one of many little lefty douche bags on THIS message board.....
 
maineman said:
But somehow, you can throw out YOUR speculations without a single source, and that's perfectly acceptable? I further would suggest that you have NOTHING other than your own baseless partisan speculation that would prove that the insurgency against America was against western style democracy and not simply Iraqis who were vehemently opposed to having an invading, conquering Armed force occupying their land against their will.
Click to expand...

Well the 70% turnout for democratic elections in spite of assassinations and death threats is the proof, idiot. Iraq didn't break out into a civil war, like you repeatedly predicted. The populace was not sharply divided as it turned out, they were very much in favor of having western style democracy in Iraq, and we finally put down the remnants of Saddam's regime who had formed a coalition with alqaeda in Iraq and other radical Islamic terror groups. The ISF is fully capable of dealing with internal threats from radicals now, and this is why you never saw the glorious "Arab Spring" in Iraq. These people have no intention of ever giving up freedom to the Muslim Brotherhood.


The only people's will we defied by going into Iraq, were Saddam and his henchmen, and radical Islamic fundies.

...And of course, LIBERALS.
 
NOVA said:
Yeah, really....I'm absolutely sure about everything in my post.....you on the other hand are a loud-mouth idiot assuming others didn't serve and even if
they didn't you don't have a clue as to why......giving opinions that are not facts, only opinions.

The Iraq War Resolution was PASSED by the Congress....its undeniable FACT......

You're only one of many little lefty douche bags on THIS message board.....
Click to expand...

Hey douche....re-read what you posted. You said he did not "use the military without congressional approval".. U simply said that you don't know that for a fact...which you don't. You mentioned one military action. But your original post was very broad.
 
Dixie said:
Well the 70% turnout for democratic elections in spite of assassinations and death threats is the proof, idiot. Iraq didn't break out into a civil war, like you repeatedly predicted. The populace was not sharply divided as it turned out, they were very much in favor of having western style democracy in Iraq, and we finally put down the remnants of Saddam's regime who had formed a coalition with alqaeda in Iraq and other radical Islamic terror groups. The ISF is fully capable of dealing with internal threats from radicals now, and this is why you never saw the glorious "Arab Spring" in Iraq. These people have no intention of ever giving up freedom to the Muslim Brotherhood.


The only people's will we defied by going into Iraq, were Saddam and his henchmen, and radical Islamic fundies.

...And of course, LIBERALS.
Click to expand...

Actually, I realize that this may be hard for you to comprehend, but it is possible for the majority of people to not only favor democracy, but to also be enraged that their homeland is occupied by an invading, conquering foreign armed force. The fact that Iraqi citizens turned out in large numbers to vote in elections in absolutely NO WAY proves your ridiculous, unsubstantiated - and heretofore refuted - allegation that the insurgency was mostly foreign terrorists. You made a stupid unfounded assertion, and now you won't just admit that you pulled something out of your ass that might have fit your own preferred partisan storyline, but when that assertion emerged from that dark, dank, well traveled tunnel, it didn't pass the smell test. You just refuse to admit you were wrong, and I've got some free time on my hands now that the house is done and the next round of visitors doesn't arrive for a while, so I intend to rub your nose in it until you do.
 
Last edited:
And as to your belief that a kumbaya singing, hand holding, multi-cultural Jeffersonian democracy is blooming on the banks of the Euphrates, it would seem that my predictions of ongoing sectarian violence in Iraq in the wake of our pullout was not so far from wrong:

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/renewed-violence-iraq/p28808

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/iraq-mixed-families-fear-violence.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/19/sectarianism-divides-iraq-again

http://globalconflictanalysis.com/2013/04/iraq-bomb-blasts-a-reminder-of-sectarian-violence/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/world/iraq-violence

Trying to force peace and harmony in a land whose borders were arbitrarily drawn by rich europeans at the turn of the last century and, for whom, all the inhabitants were uniformly dirty little ragheads, was never going to be a winning solution. Sunnis and shiites have NEVER played nice together... Having democracy crammed down their throats by an occupying army of infidels and a foreign "provisional authority" was never going to change that fact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top