The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Guns N RockMusic]

So as we come closer to Iraqi independence and self-reliance doesn't it seem appropriate for those in the supportive role to withdraw. 

If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and
South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer.

That assumes that they will, again I think you missed the word "could" in there SLC.  But again, the closer we get to Iraq being self-suportive, a lesser amount of troops will be needed.  Someone already posted the drastic improvments in the quality of life for the Iraqis since the war began and the next election is just a few weeks away.  America will be leaving Iraq as well will its alllies when the job is done; and that time is near.

Your blind hatred for Bush and total disregard for the lives of Iraqis let's you find an article like this and ignore the "what ifs" and "maybes" accepting the whole thing as absolute and fact.  Iraq is a better place now than it ever has been before and I refuse to tarnish and destory the hard work of thousands of dead soldiers to aide you in your crusade to stain the accomplishments thus far made and those soon to happen.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So as we come closer to Iraqi independence and self-reliance doesn't it seem appropriate for those in the supportive role to withdraw.?

If Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Poland and
South Korea reduce or recall their personnel, more than half of the non-American forces in Iraq could be gone by next summer.

That assumes that they will, again I think you missed the word "could" in there SLC.? But again, the closer we get to Iraq being self-suportive, a lesser amount of troops will be needed.? Someone already posted the drastic improvments in the quality of life for the Iraqis since the war began and the next election is just a few weeks away.? America will be leaving Iraq as well will its alllies when the job is done; and that time is near.

Your blind hatred for Bush and total disregard for the lives of Iraqis let's you find an article like this and ignore the "what ifs" and "maybes" accepting the whole thing as absolute and fact.? Iraq is a better place now than it ever has been before and I refuse to tarnish and destory the hard work of thousands of dead soldiers to aide you in your crusade to stain the accomplishments thus far made and those soon to happen.

Great Post 

When the time is right we will leave Iraq, and it not too far off.

[shades]

exactly,
close to 70% of Iraqis think things are better today than they were under Saddam, already.
40 men line up to join the Iraqi police, suicide bomber kills 12 of them and the very next day the other 28 line up again at the exact same location.
2 years ago there were 0 zero men in the Iraqi army, today over 200,000, well on the way to 300,000.
Patience my friends.
over three hundred different partys registered for the election to fill 275 seats.
66% voter turnout under threat of death.
The infrastructure is looking better every day.
4000 new businesses, women are involved, imagine that...these are smart people that will respond more and more as they become convinced this is all really happening.

What does all this have to do with the war on terror? It means IMO  that a beacon for democracy is being built in a region that was becoming
a breeding ground for terrorist.
In addiition, do you think the government of Syria or Iran, or anyone else in that region would dare get caught sponsoring a terrorist attack?
The terrorist are left with very little to fight with
November suicide bombings numbered 23 compared with over 60/ month inthe previous 3 months.
We have to fight these people, we have to. And we're winning.
And if someone has a better idea, Bush said long ago, he is all ears. Offer an alternative, an idea, when you bash his policys and you just might sound a little more sincere.
As it stands, to us, it just sounds like sour grapes... Which may explain to 'you' , why we sound stubborn.

[pilferk]

And if someone has a better idea, Bush said long ago, he is all ears. Offer an alternative, an idea, when you bash his policys and you just might sound a little more sincere.
As it stands, to us, it just sounds like sour grapes... Which may explain to 'you' , why we sound stubborn.

We have, and we still do, often.

But apparently there is a bad case of politico-amnesia that effects many of the conservative posters here.? They ask the same questions, over and over again and insist we've never made alternate suggestions (though they are preserved in the archives of this board for anyone to find).? They use the standard conservative argument against liberals because, apparently, it's been ingrained in them...regardless of what has actually happened.

There are plenty of suggestions that have been posted on these boards by "us".? Yet, many of you still insist they dont' exist, and ask the same questions, and levy the same accusations of "not having better ideas", again and again.

[Guns N RockMusic]

And if someone has a better idea, Bush said long ago, he is all ears. Offer an alternative, an idea, when you bash his policys and you just might sound a little more sincere.
As it stands, to us, it just sounds like sour grapes... Which may explain to 'you' , why we sound stubborn.

We have, and we still do, often.

But apparently there is a bad case of politico-amnesia that effects many of the conservative posters here.? They ask the same questions, over and over again and insist we've never made alternate suggestions (though they are preserved in the archives of this board for anyone to find).? They use the standard conservative argument against liberals because, apparently, it's been ingrained in them...regardless of what has actually happened.

There are plenty of suggestions that have been posted on these boards by "us".? Yet, many of you still insist they dont' exist, and ask the same questions, and levy the same accusations of "not having better ideas", again and again.

You mean the suggestions to pull out of Iraq immediately and let millions of Iraqis be tortured?? You mean the idea to have a deadline so that the terrorists get a surge of morale and know that after x date, Iraq is theirs?? Or do you mean the millions of suggestions that are made now regarding of what should have happened 2 years ago.? It's not that we ignore these suggestions, it's the fact that they're so damn stupid we just assume that you don't want to be taken seriously --- at least outside of the circle of internet liberals. 

[pilferk]

You mean the suggestions to pull out of Iraq immediately and let millions of Iraqis be tortured?? You mean the idea to have a deadline so that the terrorists get a surge of morale and know that after x date, Iraq is theirs?? Or do you mean the millions of suggestions that are made now regarding of what should have happened 2 years ago.? It's not that we ignore these suggestions, it's the fact that they're so damn stupid we just assume that you don't want to be taken seriously --- at least outside of the circle of internet liberals.?

Thanks for demonstrating my point so elequently.

You're drastically misrepresenting some of the suggestions made.? Drastically.? But, again, that's what I was talking about in the first place.? Politico-amnesia.? You 'remember' only what will somehow reinforce your perceptions, rather than what's already actually happened.? And then, as above, you levy the same accusations that have been addressed, ad nauseum, in previous discussions...which we assume means YOU don't want to be taken seriously.

Edit: And, on that note, lets address your first two accusations, shall we:

While some (and I can't even remember who or where) posters may have suggested an immediate pull out, MOST of the posters have suggested that's not really feasible.? What has been suggested is that PLANNING should start for a pull out.? Pretty big difference. I even asked SLC to clarify one of his posts and he agreed he meant planning. Of course, you can't argue that, so it gets misrepresented as "you wanna pull up stakes tomorrow and you're going to let innocent Iraqi's get tortured and killed", which, of course, is nonsense.? Any planning of withdrawal would have to include contingencies for Iraqs security as well as a number of other things.

And while some have suggested a "timetable" in the sense of "pull out such and such number of troops by such and such a date", there have, again, been other suggestions of an objective based, goal oriented exit strategy being made public.  That's not going to improve terrorist morale, it's going to shatter it...because we will be able to prove both to THEM and the American People that we are, in fact, accomplishing objectives and "winning" the war.  It would also help asuage the fears of the Iraqi citizens who suspect our eye on their country might be Imperialistic more than altruisitc, at this point.  And those suspicious Iraqi citizens are far less helpful to our cause, and far MORE helpful to the "insurgents" cause than we would like.

But, of course, those suggestions aren't "fodder" for you, so you ignore them....and then, 2 weeks later, ask the same questions AGAIN, which result in the same answers AGAIN..which you will promptly forget.?

[Guns N RockMusic]

Was it just me or did you actually agree with my claims, but immediately dismiss them as only some posters.  SO if we take your view of SLC's position, it still means we can't leave until the Iraqis can take care of themselves; the exact plan Bush has had in place from day 1.  Again, Pilferk, if any date is given for final withdrawl, the terrorists will simply stay dormant until they have free reign.  A burglar doesn't break into your home now when he knows you'll leave in two hours.  You can distort what people have said to try to make their reckless positions more respectable, but when cornered for a practical solution it's either similar to Bush's (see your rendition of SLC's pullout) or will result in terrorist laying low until best to to attack.  And I don't need to be taken seriously by you, because my position is that shared by the US administration and most Americans and is the policy already in practice.

[pilferk]

Was it just me or did you actually agree with my claims, but immediately dismiss them as only some posters.?

No, I dismissed your assertion that you were presenting anything approximating a "fair" depiction of ALL the suggestions that have been offered.? I was tempted to say I'd NEVER seen anyone suggest an immediate (as in, tomorrow or the next day) pull out..but caught myself since I remembered ONE poster who did suggest it.   Lots of people make outrageous suggestions...I could start pointing out all of those by "your side" too, if you'd like.

See, shades said no one's made any suggestions.? ?I said they had.? You said all the suggestions made were bunk, and shouldn't be taken seriously.? I'm saying you're wrong.? Follow?

SO if we take your view of SLC's position, it still means we can't leave until the Iraqis can take care of themselves; the exact plan Bush has had in place from day 1.

Not true.? See, we don't necessarily HAVE to be the ones doing the taking care (at least not under our guise). Neither do the Iraqi's. We just need provisions to make sure it's done.? Again, you're displaying the politico-amnesia I talked about.? This stuff has been asked and answered, already...multiple times.

? Again, Pilferk, if any date is given for final withdrawl, the terrorists will simply stay dormant until they have free reign.? A burglar doesn't break into your home now when he knows you'll leave in two hours.?

Read what I wrote.? Read it again. Once more.? I said we don't give a date.? We give an series of objectives to be completed.? A burglar won't break into your home if you have a state of the art alarm system installed.? Once again, this topic has been asked, and answered, multiple times....

You can distort what people have said to try to make their reckless positions more respectable, but when cornered for a practical solution it's either similar to Bush's (see your rendition of SLC's pullout) or will result in terrorist laying low until best to to attack.

On the contrary, it's YOU who are distorting what people have actually said.? And again, making my original point so elequently for me.

SLC's version of pullout, my version of a pullout and my suggestion for a public objective based exit strategy bear no resemblance to any "plan" Bush has adopted, at least publicly.? Nor would they have the effect you say "will" happen (I'd love to see proof, FYI).? Again, all this has been asked and answered in, well....some of it in this very monstrosity of a thread.

? And I don't need to be taken seriously by you, because my position is that shared by the US administration and most Americans and is the policy already in practice.

The Administration? Sure.? Not what I'd be particularly proud of, all things considered.? And certainly not a ringing endorsement.

Most Americans? Not according to every recent poll we've seen.? But that's a common tactic of late from the posters on the right: Overstating the "popularity" of their views.

Policy in practice?? As inneffective and disastrous as it's been, I wouldn't say that's a real good benchmark, either.

[shades]

he has no ideas,
as expressed in the preceding three posts of babble.

he will double talk you about reading back at his earlier posts, he doesnt want to do your homework for you, hes tired of 'educating' you.
babble...yadda yadda yadda.

Bottom line, no ideas. niothing, zero, he knows what he doesnt want but not what he wants. a typical liberal.

Timeline was, is and will be the same as it was at the beginning.
when were done. Sounds like English to me.
You had no idea and have no idea what winning would/will entail until you acess the problem on the ground and measure the Iraqi peoples will and heart.
Bush said 2 years ago that if the Iraqis ask us to leave tomorrow were gone. Well, their not.
They are becoming stronger more organized every day. We will exit when it is the right time to exit, not when a liberal tells us to. Because they are simple politically motivated in thinking "bring our boys home" will somehow be their 2008 rally cry. Wrong again losers.
The "American" people he suggests 'want to know a timeline, an exit strategy, are nothing more than the same lot that voted for a man that said he actually voted for the war before he voted against it.
Babble loves other babble.

[RichardNixon]

exactly,
close to 70% of Iraqis think things are better today than they were under Saddam, already.
40 men line up to join the Iraqi police, suicide bomber kills 12 of them and the very next day the other 28 line up again at the exact same location.
2 years ago there were 0 zero men in the Iraqi army, today over 200,000, well on the way to 300,000.
Patience my friends.
over three hundred different partys registered for the election to fill 275 seats.
66% voter turnout under threat of death.
The infrastructure is looking better every day.
4000 new businesses, women are involved, imagine that...these are smart people that will respond more and more as they become convinced this is all really happening.

What does all this have to do with the war on terror? It means IMO? that a beacon for democracy is being built in a region that was becoming
a breeding ground for terrorist.
In addiition, do you think the government of Syria or Iran, or anyone else in that region would dare get caught sponsoring a terrorist attack?
The terrorist are left with very little to fight with
November suicide bombings numbered 23 compared with over 60/ month inthe previous 3 months.
We have to fight these people, we have to. And we're winning.
And if someone has a better idea, Bush said long ago, he is all ears. Offer an alternative, an idea, when you bash his policys and you just might sound a little more sincere.
As it stands, to us, it just sounds like sour grapes... Which may explain to 'you' , why we sound stubborn.

70% of Iraqis polled think they are better off now? Source please.

Even if you do supply a source, I wonder who conducted the poll.

Shades-Why don't you enlist and go fight for freedom and democracy in Iraq, or are you content to be an armchair warrior?

Oh wait, you have to be at least 18 to enlist.

[shades]

I served my time JR, while you were playing dolls with your little sister.
And we ran into a few of your kind in the field.
They made good dishwashers and were beter off staying out of the way.
Any more questions?

[RichardNixon]

I served my time JR, while you were playing dolls with your little sister.
And we ran into a few of your kind in the field.
They made good dishwashers and were beter off staying out of the way.
Any more questions?

ahahahahahahahahah

Playing with your GI Joe Dolls does not count as "serving time."

[pilferk]

he has no ideas,
as expressed in the preceding three posts of babble.

Thanks for demonstrating a decided lack of reading comprehension...and, in one fell swoop, proving yourself wrong and making my point for me AGAIN. ?Politico-amnesia.

he will double talk you about reading back at his earlier posts, he doesnt want to do your homework for you, hes tired of 'educating' you.
babble...yadda yadda yadda.

It's not double talk. ?It's an unwillingness to repeat myself every 2 weeks when you all "forget" what's atually been said.

 And, in your case, it's an unwillingness to do the research YOU should do yourself before spouting off.  I've done it before.  It's gotten boring.

Bottom line, no ideas. niothing, zero, he knows what he doesnt want but not what he wants. a typical liberal.

Liar. ?I'm not a lib. ?Registered independant. ?As I've said in earlier posts, when you try to pigeonhole me again..you're flat out lying.

Timeline was, is and will be the same as it was at the beginning.
when were done. Sounds like English to me.

If you think that's a timeline, sounds to me like you don't really understand the meaning of the word. ?So I'm not sure your opinion that it "sounds like English" would be particularly compelling.

You had no idea and have no idea what winning would/will entail until you acess the problem on the ground and measure the Iraqi peoples will and heart.

Not true. And a gross simplification, at best.

Bush said 2 years ago that if the Iraqis ask us to leave tomorrow were gone. Well, their not.
They are becoming stronger more organized every day. We will exit when it is the right time to exit, not when a liberal tells us to. Because they are simple politically motivated in thinking "bring our boys home" will somehow be their 2008 rally cry. Wrong again losers.

1) Insulting posters is against the rules. How many times must you be told? Oh, wait....politico-amnesia.

2) According to informed sources (like the Time magazine reporter who was on the ground) reports of their "getting stronger" have been pretty exagerated.

3) Politically motivated? Politically motivated? Coming from you, that's a peach. ?Really...open mic night.

The "American" people he suggests 'want to know a timeline, an exit strategy, are nothing more than the same lot that voted for a man that said he actually voted for the war before he voted against it.
Babble loves other babble.

If that were true, Kerry would be in office right now. ?Look at the numbers. ?Of course, you'll forget them in a week or so anyway....

[shades]

Look, I dont talk about what I did or where I did it,
but you brought it up, out of the blue I might add and rather rudely, and you had that comment coming.
I served 5 years in the US army, lets leave it at that.

Didnt you post the article on Bruce Willis saying positive things on the effort in Iraq.
Im confused on which side you come down on.

But I take it by your unwarranted pot shot at me you dont agree with my views.

Either way, I have no beef with you so lets keep it that way.

[RichardNixon]

Yes, I posted that article about Bruce Willis because I thought it was funny. A new "Green Berets" for the 00s. Your entitled to your views, and we can all respect that, but your not making any friends calling people "losers." Have you even made one post on this board that relates to Guns N' Roses?

[pilferk]

70% of Iraqis polled think they are better off now? Source please.

Even if you do supply a source, I wonder who conducted the poll.

Oh god...don't ask him to PROVE things!!!

[Booker Floyd]

70% of Iraqis polled think they are better off now? Source please.

Even if you do supply a source, I wonder who conducted the poll.

Perhaps somebody from their free media? ?It surely cant be propaganda...

U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers

By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.

"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.

But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.

The article was one of several in a storyboard, the military's term for a list of articles, that was delivered Tuesday to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm paid by the Pentagon, documents from the Pentagon show. The contractor's job is to translate the articles into Arabic and submit them to Iraqi newspapers or advertising agencies without revealing the Pentagon's role. Documents show that the intended target of the article on a democratic Iraq was Azzaman, a leading independent newspaper, but it is not known whether it was published there or anywhere else.

Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism.

In addition to paying newspapers to print government propaganda, Lincoln has paid about a dozen Iraqi journalists each several hundred dollars a month, a person who had been told of the transactions said. Those journalists were chosen because their past coverage had not been antagonistic to the United States, said the person, who is being granted anonymity because of fears for the safety of those involved. In addition, the military storyboards have in some cases copied verbatim text from copyrighted publications and passed it on to be printed in the Iraqi press without attribution, documents and interviews indicated.

In many cases, the material prepared by the military was given to advertising agencies for placement, and at least some of the material ran with an advertising label. But the American authorship and financing were not revealed.

Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Wednesday that they had no information on the contract. In an interview from Baghdad on Nov. 18, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a military spokesman, said the Pentagon's contract with the Lincoln Group was an attempt to "try to get stories out to publications that normally don't have access to those kind of stories." The military's top commanders, including Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, did not know about the Lincoln Group contract until Wednesday, when it was first described by The Los Angeles Times, said a senior military official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Pentagon officials said General Pace and other top officials were disturbed by the reported details of the propaganda campaign and demanded explanations from senior officers in Iraq, the official said.

When asked about the article Wednesday night on the ABC News program "Nightline," General Pace said, "I would be concerned about anything that would be detrimental to the proper growth of democracy."

[Booker Floyd]

(contd.)

Others seemed to share the sentiment. "I think it's absolutely wrong for the government to do this," said Patrick Butler, vice president of the International Center for Journalists in Washington, which conducts ethics training for journalists from countries without a history of independent news media. "Ethically, it's indefensible."

Mr. Butler, who spoke from a conference in Wisconsin with Arab journalists, said the American government paid for many programs that taught foreign journalists not to accept payments from interested parties to write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as news.

"You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility," he said.

The Government Accountability Office found this year that the Bush administration had violated the law by producing pseudo news reports that were later used on American television stations with no indication that they had been prepared by the government. But no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad.

The Lincoln contract with the American-led coalition forces in Iraq has rankled some military and civilian officials and contractors. Some of them described the program to The New York Times in recent months and provided examples of the military's storyboards.

The Lincoln Group, whose principals include some businessmen and former military officials, was hired last year after military officials concluded that the United States was failing to win over Muslim public opinion. In Iraq, the effort is seen by some American military commanders as a crucial step toward defeating the Sunni-led insurgency.

Citing a "fundamental problem of credibility" and foreign opposition to American policies, a Pentagon advisory panel last year called for the government to reinvent and expand its information programs.

"Government alone cannot today communicate effectively and credibly," said the report by the task force on strategic communication of the Defense Science Board. The group recommended turning more often for help to the private sector, which it said had "a built-in agility, credibility and even deniability."

The Pentagon's first public relations contract with Lincoln was awarded in 2004 for about $5 million with the stated purpose of accurately informing the Iraqi people of American goals and gaining their support. But while meant to provide reliable information, the effort was also intended to use deceptive techniques, like payments to sympathetic "temporary spokespersons" who would not necessarily be identified as working for the coalition, according to a contract document and a military official.

In addition, the document called for the development of "alternate or diverting messages which divert media and public attention" to "deal instantly with the bad news of the day."

Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said the terms of the contract did not permit her to discuss it and referred a reporter to the Pentagon. But others defended the practice.

"I'm not surprised this goes on," said Michael Rubin, who worked in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and 2004. "Informational operations are a part of any military campaign," he added. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."

Two dozen recent storyboards prepared by the military for Lincoln and reviewed by The New York Times had a variety of good-news themes addressing the economy, security, the insurgency and Iraq's political future. Some were written to resemble news articles. Others took the form of opinion pieces or public service announcements.

One article about Iraq's oil industry opened with three paragraphs taken verbatim, and without attribution, from a recent report in Al Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. But the military version took out a quotation from an oil ministry spokesman that was critical of American reconstruction efforts. It substituted a more positive message, also attributed to the spokesman, though not as a direct quotation.

The editor of Al Sabah, a major Iraqi newspaper that has been the target of many of the military's articles, said Wednesday in an interview that he had no idea that the American military was supplying such material and did not know if his newspaper had printed any of it, whether labeled as advertising or not.

The editor, Muhammad Abdul Jabbar, 57, said Al Sabah, which he said received financial support from the Iraqi government but was editorially independent, accepted advertisements from virtually any source if they were not inflammatory. He said any such material would be labeled as advertising but would not necessarily identify the sponsor. Sometimes, he said, the paper got the text from an advertising agency and did not know its origins.

Asked what he thought of the Pentagon program's effectiveness in influencing Iraqi public opinion, Mr. Jabbar said, "I would spend the money a better way."

The Lincoln Group, which was incorporated in 2004, has won another government information contract. Last June, the Special Operations Command in Tampa awarded Lincoln and two other companies a multimillion-dollar contract to support psychological operations. The planned products, contract documents show, include three- to five- minute news programs.

Asked whether the information and news products would identify the American sponsorship, a media relations officer with the special operations command replied, in an e-mail message last summer, that "the product may or may not carry 'made in the U.S.' signature" but they would be identified as American in origin, "if asked."

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington for this article, and Kirk Semple and Edward Wong from Baghdad.

[shades]

well, frankly, you are losers.
In the elected official way. Which is the way I used the term
You vote Dem
Repub wins...you lose. loser.

And if you actually think the US pays journalists to write articles spinning the war.

 ?what am I dealing with here.

let me guess
UFO's right?

[pilferk]

well, frankly, you are losers.
In the elected official way. Which is the way I used the term
You vote Dem
Repub wins...you lose. loser.

LOL...SURE that's what you mean.

In any event:

 I see...you take the "home team" approach to politics.? You know...where you treat the whole thing like some huge sporting event.? Rock out with your cock out when your "team" wins. Gotcha.

That explains volumes about you, your political views, and your posts.

Hmm...on a completely different note, didn't someone we all know say something like "vicarious existance is a fucking waste of time"?? I'm just saying...