must read
Read the slate article but here is a great tease for you…
The topper, which he has recited several times before, is that if we fail in Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. He uttered a few variations of the line this morning: “If we were to fail, they’d come and get us. … If we let up, we’ll be attacked. … It’s better to fight them there than here.”
Tags: Bush, Bush's FUBAR War
“Clearly, this is nonsense, on three levels.”
So is this artcile.
“First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology.”
This was disproven in the report that came out the other day showing that over 70% of “insurgents” are from the Gulf states and NOT Iraqi. So debunk one bad arguement.
“Second, to the extent that the true global terrorists could attack us at home, they could do so whether or not U.S. troops stay or win in Iraq. The one issue has nothing to do with the other.”
There is some truth in this, but it also misses by a mile. Yes, they could still attack us over here, which is why Conservatives are screaming that our borders should have been sealed years ago. But, the terrorists see how important the battle in Iraq is and have been putting much of their effort in over there. We have been systematically weakening them, not as quickly as we would like, but doing so none the less. We withdrawl from Iraq and all of their resources get directed to the US.
“Third, what kind of thing is this to say in front of the allies? If our main goal in bombing, strafing, and stomping through Iraq is to make sure we don’t have to do so on our own territory, will any needy nation ever again seek our aid and cover?”
What it says is we don’t put up with anything and we will NOT wait for you to come to us. Will any needy nation seek our help again? Yes. They all hate the strong country that we are, but when they need help we are the first one they turn to. Because we are the only country who has that combination of ability and desire to help. Sure China is strong, but would they lend a hand….no.
BTW, did any of you read the article the other day (in the AP) about how in the Anbar Province (one of the worst), tribal leaders and the US military were working together to drive out Al Qaida, and in some places the attack rates had been driven down to virtually zero? Probably not. Stories like that never seemed to get picked up by “mainstream” media. It doesn’t support their goals.
This was disproven in the report that came out the other day showing that over 70% of “insurgents” are from the Gulf states and NOT Iraqi. So debunk one bad arguement
so all insurgents are Al Qeada Chris?
“so all insurgents are Al Qeada Chris?”
No. The article spelled out that 70% of the them come from Gulf states and are most likely members of Al Qaida. It is suspected that many of the remaining 30% are Iranian since Iranian money and weapons have been found. Are their some Iraqis among the insurgents? No doubt. There are probably some Iraqis that have joined Al Qaida. There are people here in America that have joined. But by NO MEANS is the majority of Iraqi out there bombing our soldiers. Most of the bombers are NON-Iraqis. Making it hardly the Civil War you wish it to be.
If you are going to throw out statements like those last 2, please site something.
I guess Sadr Army is a bunch of Crazy Iranians too?
where the hell does it say No. The article spelled out that 70% of the them come from Gulf states and are most likely members of Al Qaida. ????
Ask and ye shall receive…
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20070523-0312-iraq-arabinsurgents.html
hey thanks for the link, you are still wrong it doesn’t say that they are al qaeda though. great job.
next….
read the slate article again buddy
still didn’t site anything that says the majority isn’t bombing our soldiers either…
and if you would read my comments in the past or posts in the past…
many car bombs go off and don’t kill any soldiers but are aimed at civilians. Seriously man you bore me at this point.
Hmm..lets see (from my link)
“…to join the ranks of al-Qaeda and other insurgent or terrorist groups there.”
I assume you are referring to the part about other insurgent or terrorist groups there. I guess this is where we disagree. I believe (as many do) that al-Qaeda is the primary group causing the issues. I guess you have a point with the SADR Amry, but they are an exception, hardly a rule. And they are ticked because we took away their little pocket of dictatorship and fear the retribution for their transgressions.
Now if you want to play the substantiation game. Lets..
From Slate:
“First, the vast majority of the insurgents have nothing to do with al-Qaida or its ideology. They’re combatants in a sectarian conflict for power in Iraq, and they have neither the means nor the desire to threaten North America.”
I don’t see Mr. Kaplan’s source for this claim. I guess because he writes for Slate that makes it so? You are going to have to provide me with a list of publications that you give a pass to on documentation. I don’t think I can remember them all. Maybe it is just safer to assume that if they are left-leaning then they must be ok in your book.
“many car bombs go off and don’t kill any soldiers but are aimed at civilians.”
It MUST be sectarian violence then. Al-Qaeda would be too stupid to bomb civilians in hope of inciting a civil war.
Seriously short-sighted dude.
“…to join the ranks of al-Qaeda and other insurgent or terrorist groups there.”
nice try bro, but you can’t attribute the 70% comment in the first paragraph of this “article” to this statement which you clipped that is 3 paragraphs later.
I’m sure in your mind the article is saying 70% but the reporter obviously is trying to subtly link the 2 so people like yourself will walk away with that impression.
So let me ask you why doesn’t the title of this article say what you are saying?
Instead it says “Report: 70 percent of insurgents in Iraq come from Gulf states, Iraqi official says”
quite different from what you are saying. So then Why wait till the 4th paragraph to mention al Qaeda if this Iraqi Official isn’t stating this?
Please man that is weak and you know it.
American and Iraqi officials claim Syria does not do enough to prohibit people of different nationalities from crossing its 380-mile border with Iraq to join the ranks of al-Qaeda and other insurgent or terrorist groups there. Damascus denies the allegations and says it is doing all it can to stop them.
It is pretty shitty writing by this person and disengenous at best, misleading at its worst. I expect better from you bro.
I’ll do you one better I’ll write the author and ask him if this is what he meant…
if I can figure out who wrote it…
to the ap, I just sent this. Lets see if I get an answer…
To whom it may concern,
I would like to know if the AP is trying to imply that 70% of insurgents in Iraq are Al Qaeda.
Thank you,
Look forward to hearing the response.
In the meantime then…what percentage would YOU guess. 10% AQ, 5% AQ. Is AQ even there at all?
And the AP is likely to tell you that they are reporting what this Iraqi official had to say, you note that the reported certainly did not provide any data to corroborate this crazy tale.
The composition of the Iraqi insurgency is no longer a mystery and while no one will provide cast in stone numbers, they are close and the official analysts (you can hear these numbers when the Generals testify before Congress — certainly neither Abizaid or Petraeus will cite this number) talk about the foreign fighters as being somewhere between 5-10%. Citations:
Globalsecurity
House of Commons Defence Sixth Report” (Scroll down for section of Composition of Iraqi Insurgency)
Anthony Cordesman on the Insurgency This guy used to be McCain’s National Security Advisor in the Senate and one of the more sober and focused analysts of the Iraq situation out there. You have to download the pdf file to see his analysis.
a href=”http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,2366/type,1/”.Another analysis of foreign fighters by Cordesman in 2005
There is certainly more and the Cordesman stuff has plenty more citations of real analysis from US as well as other intelligence sources.
And NPR has been reporting that tribes in al-Anbar have joined up with US forces to push back against AQ for some months now. The sheiks don’t much like the draconian measures AQ want to impose on their people, so stopped shooting at our guys to shoot at AQ. This is really good. The real question is whether the sheiks are in this for the short term (get rid of AQ from their province) or for the longer term (stable democratic rule and security).
Oops, sorry for not closing that tag…
Doesn’t this dunce realize that there can never be a successful war on terror? We have always and will always have terrorists. Terror is not a people, it’s a way of thinking. This President, like President Johnson before him, continues to play the fear card. LBJ lied to us about the alleged attack on US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. Fear tactics were used by LBJ in 1964 to get the public and congress to buy into his contrived war. King George continues to do the same thing. Please America wake up to reality.(especially you out there in the red states)
hey, thanks for visiting!
if you haven’t noticed he has been using the fear card alot more recently
You know I just had an epiphany. You guys are right. Bush keeps playing the fear card. How stupid could I have been. Here I am all worried about terrorists blowing things up, knocking down buildings, maybe even setting off dirty bombs. How silly. You are right. There really is nothing in the world to be afraid off.
Boy…was I ever dumb.