KrustyKidd

Duh. Thanks for the news flash JBG. I caught onto Black Dog after he tried to play the memory loss game in this and the Iraqi Civil War thread where I explained each point to him at least twice and then, the points vanished only to appear again in another thread, It's interesting to see what is a normally an intelligent poster with valid points getting unwound bit by bit in order to maintain an emotional point. I take no enjoyment of the profanity whatsoever. Black Dog explaining that democracy is safe streets and any government whether it be communism, dictatorship or monarchy (rather than violence and a weak elected government.) Yes, he appears to have a point.

Gerry, I always (well couple times no) disagree with you but here, you are right. Approval for the mission is not necessary to support the troops. What is necessary is to tell the troops they are doing right and doing it well all the way. Just like their government and people are expecting them to do. Then, shut the hell up until the next election, outside of party politics. So, a counter question; is Gerry doing the service guys proud by telling them he is proud of them but their mission is bullshit? I think not. Therefore, Gerry is not supporting the troops, rather, lowering their morale. As a counter, Gerry might say - "Guys, get them Taliban dudes, they are scum! Keep on getting them butt heads until I can get you all back!" Nope. Just sidewinding questions and trival discussion about right and wrong while our men and women fight a horrid enemy in a faraway place needing every ounce of morale support we can give. Your support is in the form of 'wrong mission but I support you poor saps by saying your enemy is too strong and you don't belong there as you won't ever change anything.' You rock.

Yes. A sweeping generalization of a bunch of nuts. What name do you apply to them? I vehnemously used the term sand nigger to illustrate that you lump them into a catagory of people who cannot and will not be able to become conmon sensical humans who can coexist. i don't believe that but, you seem to think that eludes them all. What then is your term for this type of person who you feel comprises the bulk of Iraqi society? Neither country was in violation of fourteen UN resolutions, immediately adjacent to Saudi Arabia nor did they have enough oil to expedite a rapid recovery from decades of oppression. Yes they did. The term 'any means necessary' has no restriction. BTW, after sixteen years, Iraq is no longer in violation of any UNSC resolutions - coincidence? I think not. All thanks to an easy invasion. Why? Kerry ran on a platform of Bush just doig it all wrong. Never once did he say he was going to pull troops out. So, what has changed? To tell the truth I have no idea of who this guy is but, a benchmark is a means of measurement. Not a trigger for action. There is not a civil war. Possibly if certain groups can congeal but as of now, it is a lot of violence by just as you say - tribes and sects. Most of it in defensive measures against percieved actions of other tribes and sects that were instigated by insurgents. So, if the insurgents were taken out of the [icture, how fast do you think things would settle down? Then what is your term that you vocalize these violent people who cannot cope with democracy yet participate in it by? You obviously don't think they are capable of it so what term do you use and, I will abide by it providing it makes sense.

Not talking about the US using sacred soil to attack sacred soil and occupy it. Talking about the US making surgical strikes into Saudi Arabia and getting out immediately afterwards. In any case, the Saudis knew the US would do it and the intent by the US (for the third time Black Dog - hello? Anybody there?) was to force them to act, not for the US to act to their embarassement. It succeeded. Measured in days or months? The Taliban would still be in power if they hadn't refused to give up Osama Bin Laden for crying out loud! Throwing lumber tarps on women, breaking guitars like a druken rock star clitorizing baby girls, basically doing whatever a fundementalist buch of Wahhabist cowboys do for entertainment according to their version of the 'book'. So because of terrorism acts, a government is doomed to fail? That's not what you said in this thread. Oh, just in case anybody that wants to know what I replied, here you go .... Krusty Replying to Black Dog saying that terrorists cannot make a government fail. (a reversal of his opinion here today in which he says they can as the government that cannot stop terrorism is in fact, not a government) So Black Dog you flip flopper. Which is it? Terrorists can cause a government to fail or they cannot? If they can, then we would have to say that the democraticly elected government of Iraq (65% voter participation, higher than our own) is being undermined by terrorism. However, it is nonetheless, a democratic government. Or, if they cannot cause a government to fail then we might surmise that the democraticly elected government of Iraq (65% voter participation, higher than our own) will survive and continue.

I undertand your theory but don't understand why the US should invest so much to undermine one country when they could simply move on and do more to more. Also, a stable country even if opposed to the US is better than an unstable friend.

Just too dumb right? They were good reasons too. Because there were more complex ones as well that you didn't notice is not his fault - it's yours for following the snadwhich boards. Surprised that the 'blood for oil' one is still not many left wingers reasons. Did not fifteen of the fifteen UNSC members all agree that something be done about Saddam's WMDs? Probably and, the Republicans will probably lose. And, the Dems will take over with the same mission with a re syntaxed battle plan that adds up to the same thing. Feel happier now? ""He became so exasperated at one briefing he bumped his head on the microphone as a reporter complained of contradictions in the distinctions he cited between "tactics" and "strategy." "Sorry, we're talking different languages," he said."" Strategy is the overal mission and tactics is how you are going to do it. Just a bunch of sand niggers to you or what? More of them give a hoot about their country than Canadians do about here and you figure that we should just give up after four years. Yet, figured Saddam should have run the place for eterity, flaunt resolution after resolution.

Yes, quite empty. Taking three hundred thousand soldiers, armor, bombers, fighter aircraft and postitioning them ten thousand miles from their home base for six months in preparation for an attack in six or more different countries and then taking out an entire twenty five million person country's military in a week. Very limited to say the least So willing to improve relationship that he wouldn't adhere to any of the conditins of the ceasefire nor any of the resolutions. Yes. Good point, Saddam was just trying to be a friend. Not to the US. The region yes. If you disagree, then please bring your problem up with the UNSC who made fourteen resolutions based on this premise. Absolutely nothing to us. Just destabilize local governments until they get their idealology in power then, with money and backing from people who are of the same mind move onto the next one and expand. If having the entire Middle East, wherre much of the west and east get their oil from, in control of a global resource, then I suppose it means nothing. So, if say, they wish to punish the Great Satan and reward Finland, that's ok with you? Or, starve China into submission that's ok too right? How about they finance a movement to Islamitize Greece? You Ok with that one? They would have the money to do it and the will. But, they are only a small organization, much like the Nazi party was. No appeal to many (only fifty percent of Saudis and probably just as many from many of the local countries) so they are harmless. Here below is a definition of democracy, nothing is mentioned about safety or insurgent groups. Best argument you've put forth in a long time Black Dog. Got me. Can't think of anything to refute your point.

Thought you understood that the objective was not to actually do it but be able, appear to be willing and have the moxie to do it. That is what effected the change and, the US really never expected that they would have to as they knew the Saudis would take action as any sane regime would in those circumstances. It appears that they did learn a lesson from the invasion of Iraq - the US now means what it says and will take whatever action they need to in order to get what they need in the WOT. Not quite. It was a US/Saudi engineered movement with each having their own reasons for pumping it. Not a broad based struggle across the Muslim world. The US used it to hurt the Soviets and prevent them from what at the time they figured was a play to move into the Gulf as they saw airbases being built in the western portion and the Saudis used it to rid themselves of radicals opposed to their regime as did many other countries. As proof, I offer the post war back stabbing of the fighters, many of whom had their passports nullified or 'lost; so they could not return home. Counting on getting back in bed with the US? Do you write this stuff or can you provide something reasonable to support it? Black Dog replying to ""Maybe. But after they help friends and destroy foes."" They have certainly rewarded friends and punished foes. The entire world considered Saddam a threat to regional peace and security and this is the best you come back with? You are so full of shit Black Dog. Wasn't it earlier in this very thread that you were saying that AL Queda was nothing and now they were in danger from them? (Black Dog repling to ""Troops in force who were not going to be tied down in the origional plan and, if and when the US decides the Iraqis can hold their own or, give up on them they will still have those troops there in their fortified bases to do the origional task if called upon."") US is not leaving no matter what. You need links? Democracy is choice. Even if all choices are bad or you are not safe, it is choice in what party you choose to rule the government. Democracy is not Saddam dictating over you and torturing your wife for pure terrorism of his people, even if you are safe.

Wondering, is their expertise limited to foreign policy or can they give some sound business and sports analysis as well?

Couldn't agree with you more. Good thing they only created the conditions for it to take place then. Saddam was probably the least of the reasons for the invasion. Same with WMDs. Also agree with you there. Bad int to boot. You put too much faith in party politics. They are all the same so, no matter who wins, expect more of the same. Not really but, not as effective as they certainly would like to be. As for benchmarks, let's wait and see what they are or, what is floated.

Acting against Al Queda from within SA in what would be against a popular movement in the eyes of the Saudis would be seen as interfering and an invasion from within. To explain it a bit further, it is a paradox; a ploy that if done properly, need not ever be done. The Saudis, seeing what the US did in Iraq knew they would act if they did not and so, with all contentions from Al Queda removed by the US vacating, let them little to bitch and moan about to rile up the population. Now, knowing the US would enter to take care of things which they did not, they acted themselves as, if the US did have to act, which the Royals believed they would, they would find themselves possibly in the middle of a coup. In other words, it was situation in which the US figured the Saudis would blink first on and, they did. Now I have it. You have no idea of what Mecca and all means to Muslims. You think it is no more importent than say - Kabul or Ismalia Egypt. FYI no non Muslims are permitted within Mecca which, like the entire country of Saudi Arabia is considered holy and off limits to casual infidels. Unlike almost all other Muslim countries. Saddam had no intentions of expanding? ""- The lesson from Iraq is not that America will help allies and destroy foes, but that America can be humbles."" Maybe. But after they help friends and destroy foes. ""- Saddam was never a regional threat"" Yes, fourteen resolutions made for nothing but to make paper and hot air. ""- It's debatable whether Iraq or simple survival motivated the Saudi regime"" Fifty percent popularity in SA and the Royals decide to clamp down on Al Queda when the US enters Iraq. Conicidence? ""- Troops in force who are tied down"" Troops in force who were not going to be tied down in the origional plan and, if and when the US decides the Iraqis can hold their own or, give up on them they will still have those troops there in their fortified bases to do the origional task if called upon. ""- Strategic bombers? WTF?"" Strategic Air Support. ""- Created an Arab democracy that's not functioning."" More voter turnout than we had in our last election. Definitely not working. I can give you culturally divided but economically unstable is a situation that can be rectified in time. And, given the money flowing in due to foreign investment and the payoff from oil revenues to come it's a falacy to claim that was not realisitc and, still is. As per the circumstances, once again, seems that a sisty five percent turnout which dwarfs most western democratic societies proves that one wrong again. As I said, most goals have been acomplished. Not really. Give it time. You cannot make the government instantly strong and trusted. It takes time and, the insurgents do not have the resources the govermnment has. People gravitate to what protects them best which is the clan or, community. Ultimately, the government will strengthen and have more influence. Heck, you gave Sadam twelve years and still would have given him more, why is it you only give the Iraqi people three or four?

Iraq was and is about removing an impediment to prosecuting the WOT and creating an invaluable asset and tool to do same.

No. A benchmark is a measurement of sucess or failure. It is then used to determine what action should be taken. And, what punitive measures might go with it for example 'withdrawl' of certain areas or, completely. However, that is all dependent on the overall rate of that sucess or failure rather than some glib statement of how things not working so 'let's pack up!' In any case, while saying that they will not withdraw and thereby giving insurgents no timetable to work on it does provide a 'to do' list to the Iraqi government which they know they will be accountable for. None of the list is a must do or else but when all added up, it would certainly be a reason to work for it or else. That's US politics and I believe that nothing would change no matter who is in charge. Let me ask you a couple of simple questions: Do you think that having a stable and democratic Iraq is worth something? I mean, is it better than having something run by a dictator or a Jihadist type of entity? If you answered yes which I know you did, what would it be worth? One day's effort, two, three what? How much money? How many lives? How much time? People on the left gave Saddam twelve years and wanted to give him more, but only now give the Iraqi people four years. What is up with that?

The objective of having US troops in SA was to defend the country, not attack it. Think about how the Muslim world would accept that if the US said "no, we are not leaving, as a matter of fact, we are taking over." It would seem if this occured that OBL would rise to power rather quickly around the globe as he would become the Muslim Churchill. Get real. With this rationale, Israel taking the Sinai in 67 is tantamount to them occupying the shrine in Mecca. Didn't say that that is the way it is but, rather the way it was planned. Why bnother when you can have both? Besides, sooner or later Saddam would have had sanctions lifted as well as the UN declaring him 'clean' even though he had every intention of continuing to use whatever he could to destabilise the region. Yes it does however, most of the objectives have been met. In that, Iraq has been sucessful. Show America has the will to help allies and destroy foes thereby providing a carrot and stick to all Depose a regional threat Force action from SA Position US troops in the region in force Aid their global and NATO mission by having another base which they can place strategic bombers Create an Arab democracy The only thing that has not occured here is stability. In that, staying the course and other catch phrases ring true until it is 100% proven that nothing will work. As an aside, the US is often accused of destabilizing governments and setting up their own puppet. Here, they have carte blanche so, what is the problem do you think? It's simply too many groups trying to fill the void all at once. Why is democracy a predictable failure? Are Arabs dumb as shit or, they just like to be run by somebody who tortures them? If the former, then it is hopless. If the latter then they ought to like being run by the government, and, pay taxes to boot! As for the rant, that is the difference between you - the pesimist and me, the realist. You wish to simply quit, never seeing what it was supposed to be or, still can be while I believe it is still completely achievable. And if not, then sucesses still have occured.

Oh, so then they approve of the benchmark idea then? So that is what 'withdrawl' means. I appoligise, I thought they just meant to simply get out now or 'soon' with little consideration for what is left behind. No. A timetable for withdrawl would be 90 days to do this or we pull out that. A benchmark is try to do this within 90 days or we will try something else.

No but you used this in your first post; Then defended it with this; And this; And here; So given that the mission was to go on until Iraq was sucessful and most if not all objectives met then withdraw. What do you mean by withdraw before they are completed if not immediate? You used 'soon' What does that mean if not before anything is complete or sucessful? Benchmarks are not a timetable. For example; secure a certain area by July is not to be taken as 'Secure it by July or the US will pull out so many troops' it means shoot for that goal or, we will have to reasses your ability in that particular area. It does however, set goals and objectives for the Iraqis to meet. With an overall score being able to be put to it to see if they are doing well or not even trying. Therefore, it has no actual time requirement but, can be defined easier.

No. Just find the quotes or a factual news story with quotes in context. Your entire post is composed of one opinion piece with links to mosely other opinion pieces. A very strange way to make a point that you contend is based on fact. So, you cannot prove that senior Republicans are breaking with the party, and that there are calls for an immediate withdrawl. Interesting given that you entire argument is just that. On the other hand, in one of your links, you managed to bolster my argument of setting up a timetable for Iraq to have benchmarks as I mentioned in my last post. It's this one from MSNBC and is a report on thisNew York Times article.

'I' should look harder? This is supposed to be your proof that people are bailing the Republican party en masse and here I see in your links nothing but reporting about Iraq and the need to do somthing better. Nothing about people doing anything but saying they need a new strategy. A point I think that I conceed given the past three month's activities. So, I will stop pressing your lack of proof of the falacy of people bailing from the party if you will stop pressing this issue in order for us to move on. And, as a bonus, I will not ask you for direct quotes which ar always lacking in your proof as they always seem to be a reporter giving his or her interpretation of the events. If you agree, then, we can move onto the next phase which is the people staying with the party but working towards a change in strategy. They haven't even started pushing them. For one thing they cannot set a timetable for withdrawl as it would condemn the mission to fail. This phsycology works against them as well in that the Iraqi government begins to depend on the US rather than become what they have to be. As for Bush holding, he also has conceeded the present course is not working and is changing the strategy - all with the intention of 'staying the course' of course. Just as the US will no matter who is in charge.

I googled for something to support your contention that they are spilitting with the party but didn't find anything with substance. Perhaps you could provide some of your intelligence Yes I do. First however, the US is not pulling out of Iraq and, it's mission has not changed. They will see it through with the end result being an Iraq that can stand on it's own. Now, that said, there will be a lot of compromise and it may not be the picture of perfection that Bush and company (as well as myself and many right wingers) envisioned but, there will be no mass exiting of troops in the near future. As a matter of fact, there may even be more sent there in the near term. My plan would be to push the Iraqis harder, force them to take hard measures on militias and such. Clean their own house of corruption amongst officials and set bench marks for progress. As for discussing US withdrawling troops on a timetable, that would be the worst thing to ever publicize as it would be cashed in on by insurgents to no end. A withdrawl would occur only by the benchmark conditions being met in whatever phase and measure of success the Iraqis and US administration and military agreed on.

It's pure conjecture what Gore or Kerry might have done. What we do know is that what Bush did do has been destructive and ineffective. That's why it's uncharted waters The part of the quote you left out for crying out loud! So, if he is an idiot, what would the other guys have done? Attack Afganistan and then spendc umpteen billion tearing western Pakestan apart, torturing villagers for information and then kiling them forprotecting their brother Osama and then, topple Musharif (an ally) because of the protests over the actions of the US within their borders and make a power vacum for Jihadists to pour into in greater numbers than Iraq while leaving Saddam in charge of Iraq and Saudi Arabis no option but to pay for the same Jihadists? All to get one guy huh? Pure conjecture. Yes. Just as it is pure conjecture to ever ex[pect an anti Bush person to tell us what action they would have taken to make it correct (in hindsight even) from the start. I've never heard or read a viable action yet. Just complaints.

Report is readable, realistic and, is slightly anti Bush which is refreshing. However, once again, it is opinion rather than factual reporting as there is no quote saying withdrawl. Same ppoint Jobbin. Leave the sensationalism alone and go for the facts. Who said what and, in what context. I doubt not that there are many high profile people who share your view so find them and quote them rather than deal with opinion peices that review reports and such without actually quoting from them.

He spoke of multiple infractions yet provided proof to one that is bullshit citing 'bad hair day' type excuses and frustration for not going further in documenting something that remotely comes into the rhealm of arguing in bad faith and being dishonest. Having lost the argument he stands by the accusation but, has no proof save a technicality which, to anyone, would be what I said it meant. He never argued what I put forth, so, as he says in one of his posts, "it stands." In order to vindicate himself by proving me wrong, he refuses to answer the question as to who he meant controls the UNSC. Why do you think that Lonious? A person such as this, who has not stopped posting refutations but does not produce the devastating proof that would prove me to be a dishonest and manipulating poster here. Who could pass up on an opportunity to do that to an opponent? Myata is who. And, not because he is benevolent and wishes me well. In fact, he fabricates a make believe slight to get out of the real argument so, where is the other instances? Non existant is where.

I explained this also to you in that thread. To have the US in force, able to utilize heavy armor, helecopters, and massive amounts of manpower against Al Queda targets of opportunity in Saudi Arabia whenever they present themselves is something the Royals would never live down. A foreign power taking care of problems that they refused to deal with themselves without actually being invaded and occupied. Kind of like Canada being so weak that the US has to enter whenever a certain problem with say ... organized crime comes up that our government refused to deal with.A national and, international embarassement. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. Iraq is not considered the holiest of the holiest lands by the majority of Muslims as Saudi Arabia is. As well as also being considered an Aposphate, Saddam is also considered a complete non believer which does not get him very much sympathy from the Conservative Wahhabists. It showed the Saudis that the US could, and would do whatever it needed to do without their help. They need the US more than the US needs them sort of thing. Dealing with a completely new and, unknown US from not within their borders as protectors but, as determined enforcers of their new mission the Saudis knew they were serious. In what is known to intelligence circles as the 'Powell Paradox' the US was determined to avert war by proving themselves not dependent on Saudi aid for staging. This failed as the Saudis attemtping to avert attention from themselves to valve off US pressure, and their inaction on Al Queda placed a Palestinian/Israeli condition on aid which they knew that neither the Palestinains, nor the Israelis would ever accept. No. The war is with the Jihadists but the occupation of the Sunni areas is not lost as they are still involved in the political process. If they were not, then I would certainly agree. Not really. Everybody did think he had them but he certainly didn't have them ready to go at a moments notice hence, he was never a threat militarily to the US. Hope that helps. Actually, I can't tell for certain which reason was the main one but, will list a few that I can think of; - taking care of an outstanding thorn in the US's and UN's side that diverted resources, attention and would sooner or later have to be dealt with. - prove to the Muslim world both friend and foe that America will stay the course and means what it says so that; - Friends: will work with the US against their jihadists knowing the US will not desert them when they act. - Foes: they will have no doubt the US will act hence, gpvernments and dictators intent on using anti westernism as an opiate for the masses will not be enlisting the aid of Jihadists to help them. In fact, they will shun them like the plague. - prove that America can muster enough force to take on a nation that does not adhere to the will of the UN. - create an Arab democracy complete with a bustling economy to set an example to the entire Muslim world. - create a friend in the ME other than Israel. - have an operating base in the heart of the ME from which further staging on the War on Terror can take place from. Those were the reasons. And, if you pause for a few moments and think, they all make sense if you believe that there is an idealology intent on riling up Arab/Muslim masses against the US and West in order to unify them to capitulate weak and what they consider aposphate regimes. An interesting point is that Saddam was both an enemy to the US and, to the Jihadists so, it created an opportunity for both. Answered above.

Welcome back. Missed you believe it or not. Anyhow, explained this to you before. If inside, Al Queda used them as a rallying point saying infidels were in the holy land thereby gaining political capital off it. The whole point of 911 was not to hurt America but rather to get the US to attack or invade Saudi Arabia in retalitation. I understand that to people of the Muslim faith, Mecca which is in Saudi Arabia is considered kinda holy and, infidels being there make them mad. Pissed off people can be moulded into movements, particularily when they are already on the verge of being in the movement like the 60% of Saudis are, or were at that time. I also explained the rest of it. Heck, tired of presenting the same point complete with links etc to you . Here, go through this thread agin, BTW, that thread was the second or third time I had explaind that to you complete with links and quotes so, please get your act together and just read them for a change befgore saying there is no proof. KK basicly summing it up for Black Dog before his latest head injury (but after the first one) If you continue reading further there are other articles and whatever that don't require you to bike around collecting pop bottles to pay for.

Yes. Guess I was right. You cannot tell who the UNSC is controlled by as you know it will vindicate me and make you, in the process admit you are a frivolous moron. As per adieu, now that you admitted that the action cannot be ruled or called illegal for now, you must feel like an illogical, emotional clown for being beaten in an argument by a person lacking in logic. ta ta.