Politics As Usual

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hank, he's not saying the higher-ups encouraged the photos. Someone higher up encouraged the behaviior.

Please tell me you're being this thick deliberately to argue a point poorly.

Atticus was saying they encouraged the photos, then he realized he was on shaky ground and backtracked to "the photos show the soldiers were encouraged because they weren't trying to hide anything." Ty continues to argue photos were encouraged. They are both silly arguments, but par for the course from these two very "special" friends of mine.

As to why I'm arguing points poorly, are you asserting I'm faking it?

[sgtclub]

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/...qawi_full.html

If we fight them [the Shia] {and we must fight them}, we will confront one of two things. Either:

1 – We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter. . . .

eft

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Assuming arguendo that the 150,000 or so troops we had in Iraq post war was an adequate number. How many troops do you think the French and Germans, collectively, would have sent had the UN "run" things? Answer: zero to a deminis amount. It still would have been overwhelmingly US and UK troops doing the lifting. The primary reason why the French (1) opposed the war and (2) wanted the UN control post war efforts, was (A) to limit their debt exposure and complicity with the Saddam regime and (B) further their "we are the balance to the US" foreing policy.

The Germans rationale was a bit different - their opposition to the war was entirely political.

You are back to the question of opposing the war, while I am still talking about the occupation & rebuilding. If we can't keep that straight, what's the point. I posted any number of links (including one from NRO) about the countries -- including the French and Germans, but also including the UK -- that wanted the UN to run post-war Iraq. You seem to be saying that since we were bound to have a great number of troops in any event, we should get to run things. Your "to the victor go the spoils" outlook is the sort of fucked-up thinking that got us to where we are now, but in any event does not prove your original point, which is that the UN said it wanted control but didn't really. That is all I am arguing about, and it is still wrong. By arguing against red herrings instead of the serious alternative to what we have done, you are just wasting time.

(1) international radical islam (including but not limited to AQ and (2) the Baathists - in other words, the same people who are shooting at us.

Our military is found of calling the opposition Ba'athist, to suggest that they are living in the past. I will suggest to you, however, that this is PR, and that whoever is doing the shooting in Iraq probably is rational enough to have some sort of forward-looking plan. Maybe not, but probably.

And they may be shooting at us because we are occupying their country. Americans would do the same, out of patriotism as much as in the name of democracy.

That's because they essentially have autonomy. Go figure.

Autonomy, and yet in a democratic Iraq they would not. We are trying to set up the country in a way that protects the rights of the Kurdish minority from the Arab majority. Now can you understand why Arabs might be shooting at us in the name of democracy?

Sadr is finished. He has lost popular support. In a matter of time and if he's lucky, he will be a footnote in history.

A poll just taken showed 68% of Iraqis supporting him. (I posted about this a few days ago, and oddly enough none of the conservatives here had anything to say about it.) That was before the Abu Ghraib, which suggests to me that only mathematics will keep his support in double digits. If this is "losing popular support," what do you have to say about Bush's support? It's a lot lower than that.

Sadr is much more likely to be dead soon.

And I submit that that you have been watching too much Al Jazeera. Yes, this is the propoganda that the organizers of the insurgency are putting forth. But again, I urge you to read the fucking intercepted letter. This is part of their strategy to win the hearts and minds.

I don't watch Al Jazeera, but I do assume that Iraqis react in the same way that you or I would if an Arab country occupied us in the name of democracy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

from CNN:

• A senior coalition military spokesman said Saturday that dozens of people killed in a U.S. attack in the Iraqi desert early Wednesday were attending a high-level meeting of foreign fighters, not a wedding. Photos shown to reporters in Baghdad support that contention.
  
  Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said six women were among the dead, but he said there was no evidence any children died in the raid near the Syrian border. Coalition officials have said as many as 40 people were killed.
  
  Kimmitt said video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.
  
  "There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations too. Bad people have parties too."
  
  Kimmitt said troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate a wedding had been held.
  
  Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.
  
  What was found, he said, indicated the building was used as a way station for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria to battle the coalition.
  
  "The building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt said. "You had over 300 sets of bedding gear in it. You had a tremendous number of pre-packaged clothing -- apparently about a hundred sets of pre-packaged clothing.
  
  "[It is] expected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries, they come to this location, they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets."
  
  At Saturday's briefing for reporters in Baghdad, Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for makeshift bombs, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan.
  
  None of the men killed in the raid carried ID cards or wallets, he said.
  
  "We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," Kimmitt said.
  
  "There was a tremendous number of incriminating pocket litter, a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."
  

[Say_hello_for_me]

So you are an Iranian religious fanatic in charge of everything. Would you rather have the Great Satan or a weakened Saddam next door?

Assume that you are the same guy in charge of the intelligence services that have been accused by the U.S. of sheltering Al Queda types who fled Afghanistan. Yeah, after that saber-rattling by us, do you really us next door in Iraq?

Will the administration explain why Iran would have wanted us to invade Iraq?

If you don't know, I'm talking about Chalabi's misinformation. Its interesting, but I'm not sure I'm convinced Iran is behind it.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
from CNN:

Or maybe not?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ea/iraq_attack

(Spree: uh oh, a video tape to partially counter U.S. claims. Cuidado!! contains graphic references to polygamy... not suitable for Papists or children)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are back to the question of opposing the war, while I am still talking about the occupation & rebuilding. If we can't keep that straight, what's the point. I posted any number of links (including one from NRO) about the countries -- including the French and Germans, but also including the UK -- that wanted the UN to run post-war Iraq. You seem to be saying that since we were bound to have a great number of troops in any event, we should get to run things. Your "to the victor go the spoils" outlook is the sort of fucked-up thinking that got us to where we are now, but in any event does not prove your original point, which is that the UN said it wanted control but didn't really. That is all I am arguing about, and it is still wrong. By arguing against red herrings instead of the serious alternative to what we have done, you are just wasting time.

Maybe we are just talking past one another (as usual). The UN may have wanted to make decisions regarding the reconstruction, but I do not believe it wanted to run, and certainly was not capable of running) the post war clean up. How could it? It has no military and no stomache (e,g., witness the pull out after the first bombing). So yes, it could have "run" post war Iraq from NYC head quarters, but it certainly could not have, and had no intention of having, the boots on the ground necessary to accomplish this.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Our military is found of calling the opposition Ba'athist, to suggest that they are living in the past. I will suggest to you, however, that this is PR, and that whoever is doing the shooting in Iraq probably is rational enough to have some sort of forward-looking plan. Maybe not, but probably.

Of course they have a plan. And it is no longer hidden (and hasn't been for several months). See the letter I posted above.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And they may be shooting at us because we are occupying their country. Americans would do the same, out of patriotism as much as in the name of democracy.

See the letter. That is why they are shooting at us.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop A poll just taken showed 68% of Iraqis supporting him. (I posted about this a few days ago, and oddly enough none of the conservatives here had anything to say about it.) That was before the Abu Ghraib, which suggests to me that only mathematics will keep his support in double digits. If this is "losing popular support," what do you have to say about Bush's support? It's a lot lower than that.

Sadr is much more likely to be dead soon.

I didn't see the post, but I don't believe it is accurate because it just doesn't jive with what I've been reading. Sadr and his militia have been left hanging out to dry by the clergy, and it is just a matter of time before he is gone (I agree, most likely he will be killed, or turned over to authorities for proescution for the murder he is alleged to have committed).

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So you are an Iranian religious fanatic in charge of everything. Would you rather have the Great Satan or a weakened Saddam next door?

Assume that you are the same guy in charge of the intelligence services that have been accused by the U.S. of sheltering Al Queda types who fled Afghanistan. Yeah, after that saber-rattling by us, do you really us next door in Iraq?

Will the administration explain why Iran would have wanted us to invade Iraq?

If you don't know, I'm talking about Chalabi's misinformation. Its interesting, but I'm not sure I'm convinced Iran is behind it.

Hello

Interesting? I kind of think if either of these charges are true it's a pretty big f-ing black eye on whoever in the admin decided to put their (and our) trust in him. I realize the LAT may have a certain slant, but the stuff described in this article is really frustrating, even without the sinister Iranian presence in the background.

A U.S. official confirmed that defectors from Chalabi's organization had provided suspect information to numerous Western intelligence agencies. "It's safe to say he tried to game the system," the official said.

A now-discredited INC defector to Germany who was code-named "Curveball" was the chief source of information on Iraq's supposed fleet of mobile germ weapons factories. Another INC defector who provided similar information was deemed a liar. So was an INC defector who said he had helped build 20 underground germ weapons laboratories.

We were paying Chalabi $340,000 a month up until five days ago.

Or is it your point that there's smoke and no fire on this end as well?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Or is it your point that there's smoke and no fire on this end as well?

Not at all. I think this is ugly for the admin either way. Either way, having misplaced so much trust in him does not reflect well on Dubya's civilians at the Pentagon. Several of whom I absolutely despise.

But I'm not sure I believe their own "reasons" for turning on him. The Iran thing just doesn't add up for me. Did they really want us on another of their borders?

If it helps you or other lefties cut through to the heart of my message, pretend for a second that I'm not defending Bush and co. in any manner on this one. In fact, I'm suggesting that the Iranian story story truly does not make any sense. Maybe they are just trying to set him up as a scapegoat, knowing that he lied to them one way or another about the WMDs.

But it would otherwise be a huge risk for Iran, and I don't see them taking it.

Do they really want Americans around Najaf and Kufa and Basra and their oil terminals on the gulf etc. etc. etc.? They knew thats what it would mean if they provoked us into taking Saddam out.

Hello

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So you are an Iranian religious fanatic in charge of everything. Would you rather have the Great Satan or a weakened Saddam next door?

Will the administration explain why Iran would have wanted us to invade Iraq?
Its interesting, but I'm not sure I'm convinced Iran is behind it.

Hello

Hello, you are a naive fool if you think that there is any differentiation between Iran, Iraq or the rest of the Islamic world. The only distinction that is relative is that there are the spawns of Islam and there are the Infidels. Guess which one we are.

If ever there was ever a false mythology that oozed up out of the dank pit o'Hell, it is Islam. Have you read the Koran!??!

Unless you ignore its mandates and read it through the rose-colored glasses that the effette liberal slobs of the psuedo-intellectual salons of the Upper West Side, Berkeley, Seattle, Portland, Paris and Georgetown use in order to ascertain the non-existent yet dunderheadedly morally relativistic moderate strain, then essentially it amounts to a credo of satanically delusional horse puckey. As we stand on the brink of the "final crusade", there appears to be two deviantions of Islam:

(1) The openly radicalized variant which advocates the nickbergification of all infidels, and

2) the moderate wolves in the sheep's clothing of a trojan camel, who are used by the radicals to lull innocent infidels to the beheading platform.

Don't kid yourself, the radicalized Islamics are deadset on clamping down the whole of humanity, civilized and otherwise, under the yoke of its seventh-century doctrine of ludditical oppression.

With that mind, I would ask you to sear into your memory the thought that on the day when the Republican mayor of the last spot of sovereign soil in the US hands over the keys to the city whilst the eternal flame of freedom flickers out, and you and he are offered your final request of either a prayer rug or a coffin, YOU WERE WARNED.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Not at all. I think this is ugly for the admin either way. Either way, having misplaced so much trust in him does not reflect well on Dubya's civilians at the Pentagon. Several of whom I absolutely despise.

But I'm not sure I believe their own "reasons" for turning on him. The Iran thing just doesn't add up for me.

If it helps you or other lefties cut through to the heart of my message, pretend for a second that I'm not defending Bush and co. in any manner on this one.

It helps me, but I'm not sure any of the other folks needed the help. By the way, glad to see you posting more lately, Hannibal.

In fact, I'm suggesting that the Iranian story story truly does not make any sense. Maybe they are just trying to set him up as a scapegoat, knowing that he lied to them one way or another about the WMDs.

Even after the Plame incident, I have a hard time believing that this admin would do something that damaging to itself just for revenge. Doesn't it make them look worse to say that not only are the WMDs not there in the amounts that we thought (or, any amounts so far exceeding the volume of one sarin shell), but in fact it turns out we thought they were there based on this guy we had on the payroll who was actually working for the Iranians?

It seems strange for the G to create a new script for No Way Out, this time with a plump Iraqi financier playing Kevin Costner's role.

But it would otherwise be a huge risk for Iran, and I don't see them taking it.

Do they really want Americans around Najaf and Kufa and Basra and their oil terminals on the gulf etc. etc. etc.? They knew thats what it would mean if they provoked us into taking Saddam out.

And I think the above even aside from this very good point of yours.

Btw, apropos of a conversation we had a long time ago on the Board that you probably have forgotten, I found this Chron article comparing SF and Oakland's homicide investigatory practices to be pretty interesting. Seems like this guy is arguing that despite Oakland's skyrockeyting homicide rate they're doing some things right. Or maybe it's just that the SFPD is having a tough time lately...

Edited for grammar...not sure I fixed it...

[Gin Rummy]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience


Edited for grammar...not sure I fixed it...

I'm having trouble following your post, so just give me the short version, are you with us or against us?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
By the way, glad to see you posting more lately, Hannibal.

I don't know how things are in the rest of the country, but our patent practice is absolutely insane right now. I was at work til 2:30 in the morning on Thursday finishing a draft of an opinion and, at 1:30, I heard an interference associate paging another interference guy. Aside from mandatory trips I take to see family and go to conferences, I'm basically at work all the time the last few months. These boards are my entertainment of sorts (as is reading the many papers online). Just bought an iMac laptop too, so I might start renting DVD's and watching them while I'm working. Basically, the DC area is insane right now, or at least that's what I'm seeing at my firm and hearing from several others. And this could just be the beginning of the next boom. Its actually a bit scary for me as a midlevel.

Nothing else on Iran here, as it appears you appreciate my point about what motivation Iran would have to do what we are accusing them of doing. We may or may not have been played before, but it seems we are definitely being played by someone now.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

Btw, apropos of a conversation we had a long time ago on the Board that you probably have forgotten, I found this Chron article comparing SF and Oakland's homicide investigatory practices to be pretty interesting. Seems like this guy is arguing that despite Oakland's skyrockeyting homicide rate they're doing some things right. Or maybe it's just that the SFPD is having a tough time lately...

I'm watching the rates in a few cities, including St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, New York, LA and DC. Chicago's new super is rocking and rolling, though I'm not sure he's fired or demoted anyone exempt yet. They are putting as much manpower (and other resources) into the worst neighborhoods as they can find. Some of it seems a bit inefficient still, but its probably better than what they were doing before Cline. Down 29% year over year. The comparisons get worse in the second half, as the decline started in the middle of last summer.

It seems Boston was a one man show with Evans, as neither his temporary replacement (who fucked up the crowd control a few months ago) or the permanent replacement (who is seeing what they are describing as a new "epidemic" of homicides) is able to produce anything like the results that Evans produced. The numbers are going a long way.

I'd love to see a good story on St. Louis, but their numbers were clearly going the right way at the end of last year. LA's are retracing (in stock terms) part of the huge decline that started under Bratton. It seems that he needs more resources, just like he asked for. And NYC seems to be holding its own, and it hopefully continues do to so.

Aside from Chicago, which is really just applying things learned over the last 10 years in numerous other cities, I think LA is the great one to watch now. With its significantly lower number of police per capita, its the ultimate test of Bratton. From the beginning, he said he needed resources on the per-capita scale of NYC if he was to produce the results on the scale he produced in NYC. It'll be interesting to see if he convinces the powers that be.

Hello

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
Hello, you are a naive fool if you think that there is any differentiation between Iran, Iraq or the rest of the Islamic world. The only distinction that is relative is that there are the spawns of Islam and there are the Infidels. Guess which one we are. Yada yada yada

So you think Iran wants us to be their neighbors?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gin Rummy
I'm having trouble following your post, so just give me the short version, are you with us or against us?

Against, if you are outraged by my outrage.