Why we are still in Iraq

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
From Michael Yon's blog inside the surge:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Now that all those realizations and more have settled in, the dynamics here are changing in palpable ways.

Since my reporting of the massacre at the al Hamari village, many readers at home have asked how anyone can know that al Qaeda actually performed the massacre. The question is a very good one, and one that I posed from the first hour to Iraqis and Americans while trying to ascertain facts about the killings.

No one can claim with certainty that it was al Qaeda, but the Iraqis here seem convinced of it. At a meeting today in Baqubah one Iraqi official I spoke with framed the al Qaeda infiltration and influence in the province. Although he spoke freely before a group of Iraqi and American commanders, including Staff Major General Abdul Kareem al Robai who commands Iraqi forces in Diyala, and LTC Fred Johnson, the deputy commander of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the Iraqi official asked that I withhold his identity from publication. His opinion, shared by others present, is that al Qaeda came to Baqubah and united many of the otherwise independent criminal gangs.

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

[snip]
 
It's ironic when I recall those on the far left on this forum who have called Bush names like BushHitler. And yet the only people actually putting people into ovens like Hitler did are groups like Al Qaeda.

And no comment from the left. I guess they'll tolerate any form of behavior if it means they can get their political power back. Too bad they won't fight our enemies as hard as they will fight our own President. :rolleyes:
 
Thyestean feast? [Victor Davis Hanson]



Greek mythology often encapsulated an entire culture's worst fears and depravities-and over centuries of story-telling became ever more complex and layered and bizarre.

But what is strange about reading Michael Yon's graphic descriptions from Iraq is that al Qaeda (or its kindred) seems almost in a single generation to be outdoing a millennium of savagery present in Greek history and myth. You have to go to Thucydides's Mycalessus to find a parallel of wiping out even the animals of a small village.

On Friday, Yon reported that al Qaeda served up a son for dinner to his own family— a barbarism reminiscent of Atreus (hence the "curse" on the House of Atreus) cooking (sans feet and hands) and then serving his twin brother's sons to their unsuspecting father Thyestes. So Yon reports a revolting modern-day Thysestean feast:


The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

What is striking about all this savagery—whether with the filmed beheadings of Westerners in Iraq to the recent flaming Johnny Storm human torch at Glasgow, screaming epithets as he sought to engulf bystanders and ignite his canisters — is the absolute silence of the West, either distracted by Paris and i-Phones or suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and obsessed with Guantanamo.

It is hard to recall an enemy so savage and yet one so largely ignored by rich affluent and distracted elites as the radical jihadists, as we have to evoke everything from mythology to comic books to find analogies to their extra-human viciousness.

For a self-congratulatory culture issuing moral lectures on everything from global warming to the dangers of smoking, the silence of the West toward the primordial horror from Gaza to Anbar is, well, horrific in its own way as well...
 
It's ironic when I recall those on the far left on this forum who have called Bush names like BushHitler. And yet the only people actually putting people into ovens like Hitler did are groups like Al Qaeda.

And no comment from the left. I guess they'll tolerate any form of behavior if it means they can get their political power back. Too bad they won't fight our enemies as hard as they will fight our own President. :rolleyes:


You're one odd guy Fossten... I do not recall anyone calling Bush a "Hitler" in the sense that Bush kills/killed people because he thought they were inferior. If anything, I think it was/is directed at his "I'm the decider" mentality.

Do you think anyone on "the left" condones the cooking of innocent children, seriously? It's also rather odd you spouting off like this, you have made it clear in the past that we should have 'gone in, smashed and left' Iraq, you have also denounced Bush yourself, why the sudden re-change of heart?
 
You're one odd guy Fossten... I do not recall anyone calling Bush a "Hitler" in the sense that Bush kills/killed people because he thought they were inferior. If anything, I think it was/is directed at his "I'm the decider" mentality.

Do you think anyone on "the left" condones the cooking of innocent children, seriously? It's also rather odd you spouting off like this, you have made it clear in the past that we should have 'gone in, smashed and left' Iraq, you have also denounced Bush yourself, why the sudden re-change of heart?
You're certainly clairvoyant if you think you know what the lefties are thinking every time they say BushHitler. I've seen the context and I can tell you that they aren't referring to his being decisive. They are referring to Bush being a dictator, thus circumventing all freedom, rights, and deliberately killing only the black citizens in New Orleans.

The left is ignoring this story and others like it. Period. They will, however, moan and groan over Michael Moore's stupid movie and global warming and poor Paris Hilton who had to spend three weeks in jail. But Iraqi children being baked and served? Crickets.

The fact that the left wants us to cut and run from Iraq shows that they would rather leave the Iraqis to the mercy of Iran and Hizbullah than to do the hard thing, which is to persevere. Do you not know anything about the killing fields and what happened to the South Vietnamese after we cut and ran from that war?

As far as my record on Bush, I'm conflicted, ok? I know he's still being minimalist, and I know he's misleading the American people by ignoring the threat of Saudi Arabia and Iran. But to leave our soldiers out to dry or to bring them home at this point would be a slap in the face. So it's a bad situation, but what are you going to do?
 
First of all I have some serious doubts about the veracity of this account. After all, it says "al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking." How exactly would killing and cooking someone's son convert one to their way of thinking? Doesn't sound very effective to me.

Whether true or not, the argument that the lack of outcry over these things is somehow an endorsement, or at the very least, tolerance of them is insane. Everybody knows that these hard-core jihadists are brutal savages, with no respect for life. We expect this kind of behavior from them. I think everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's not exactly news. Once they've reached that level of brutality, there is no redeeming them short of removing them from this world.

What is in contention is how we accomplish that goal. Those on the far right want to look at it as if there were a finite number of them and all it takes is enough bullets and bombs to finish them off, and if a few dozen/hundred/thousand innocents are killed with them, too bad. The rest of us know that such simplistic and crude tactics creates even more bitterness and hatred and converts more people to that "way of thinking", hence a never-ending supply of new recruits to take the places of those we've offed. The answer isn't going to be found in brute force any more than it would be in holding hands with them and singing folk songs around the campfire. As with absolutely everything in the real world, there are no simple answers.
 
First of all I have some serious doubts about the veracity of this account. After all, it says "al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking." How exactly would killing and cooking someone's son convert one to their way of thinking? Doesn't sound very effective to me.

Whether true or not, the argument that the lack of outcry over these things is somehow an endorsement, or at the very least, tolerance of them is insane. Everybody knows that these hard-core jihadists are brutal savages, with no respect for life. We expect this kind of behavior from them. I think everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's not exactly news. Once they've reached that level of brutality, there is no redeeming them short of removing them from this world.

What is in contention is how we accomplish that goal. Those on the far right want to look at it as if there were a finite number of them and all it takes is enough bullets and bombs to finish them off, and if a few dozen/hundred/thousand innocents are killed with them, too bad. The rest of us know that such simplistic and crude tactics creates even more bitterness and hatred and converts more people to that "way of thinking", hence a never-ending supply of new recruits to take the places of those we've offed. The answer isn't going to be found in brute force any more than it would be in holding hands with them and singing folk songs around the campfire. As with absolutely everything in the real world, there are no simple answers.
Jeez, you can't be that dense. Serving their son to them is a THREAT, dude. In other words, "...do it our way or you're next." You cannot seriously be telling me that you didn't see that.

"The rest of us..." Man you are full of yourself. Bottle yourself and label it "Narcissist." Jeez. The fact is that your so-called moderate solution has NEVER worked in the history of the world. Appeasing the enemy ALWAYS makes them more dangerous. Do you want me to cite examples, Mr. Neville Chamberlain? Or should I say Jimmy Carter and his failure of a Middle East policy?

I've often said that the solution is simple, and it goes all the way back to how Thomas Jefferson handled these Islamic Caliphate types. Go read it and educate yourself, if you have the guts. The only thing terrorists understand is force. Period.

We played head-in-the-sand in the 90s and appeared weak, so they attacked us. Remember, Osama bin Laden ADMITTED this, calling us a paper tiger? They are counting on us to lose heart and quit, because they can't beat us any other way. And the Dems in Congress are doing them a favor by whining and talking about how we've already lost the war despite the fact that the surge report hasn't even been delivered yet. Talk about doomsayers. You said yourself that sitting around the campfire won't work, yet YOUR Dem Congresscritters want to do worse than that. They want to turn tail and run and hope the problem just goes away.

Sail a carrier group into Saudi waters and tell them if they don't stop teaching terrorism in their grade schools we're going to start crumbling buildings. Furthermore, we want a 50% discount on oil for the next 50 years to compensate us for our cost of this war so far that they've helped spawn.

Oh, and as for Iran, there are soooooo many ways to whap these little pipsqueaks about the head and shoulders that anybody with a normal amount of balls (excludes the current exec and congress) could do it. Even backchannel supporting the Israelis and turning them loose on Iran would do the trick.
 
You're one odd guy Fossten... I do not recall anyone calling Bush a "Hitler" in the sense that Bush kills/killed people because he thought they were inferior. If anything, I think it was/is directed at his "I'm the decider" mentality.



I know I have never referred to him that way. I dont like him as a President and think he is stubborn. But I dont think of him nor refer to him as a hitler.

I think the people who do, mean it in the dictatorial sense. It's GW's way, period. I dont see him listening to others, I dont see him open to change. I see him with the arrogant "I am the President, end of story" attitude.

I think GW's biggest mistake is that he refuses to change his mind or policy until its way too late. I think he pushes people to support what he wants instead of listening to people and having an open mind to better ideas.

But thats just my opinion.
 
I'm well familiar with the war with Tripoli, and it has almost nothing in common with the current WOT. The Barbary States, while pretty much lawless, had a formidable military, an extensive infrastructure in place, and a well-defined chain of command. In other words, we knew exactly who we were fighting and where they were. It was as much of a conventional war as any fought before or since.

The only similarity, the only one you latch onto, is that it was Arabs that we were fighting. Even so, they had no similarities with the current Islamic radicals we're fighting now. The Barbary pirates were only after riches and power, not some misguided religious mission for the glory of Allah.

As much as I hate to invoke this cliche, it bears repeating that terrorism is not a country, it is a tactic. Osama bin Laden isn't sitting on a throne in some middle-eastern empire. His troops aren't hunkered down in fortifications with tanks, Howitzers and anti-aircraft weapons ready to go, or sailing the oceans in warships. If that was true, this would a lot easier. But they aren't and it isn't. There is no chain of command to speak of, no seat of power we can destroy. His "troops" blend in with the civilian population and cannot be identified on sight.

And that's the crux of the matter. Unless you believe that every Muslim in the world is a radical Jihadist (and I'm not so sure you don't), then how do you expect, using your "solution" of bombing the sh!t out of everyone, to eliminate the radicals without creating new ones? If we were to bomb Iran or Saudi Arabia, what do you think the reaction of the civilian population would be? Do you honestly believe we can simply bomb them into submission and install western-friendly governments and everything will be peachy? When has that ever worked for any period of time?

Would Americans stand for a hostile country invading us and taking over our government? Of course not! We'd start our own insurgency and fight until they were gone. So why do you expect others to act differently? You say they only understand force. That may or not be true, but you've certainly demonstrated that the same is true of you.
 
Just how deep in the sand IS your head buried? We don't know where they are? You're serious? Helllooooo! I just said that Saudi Arabia and Iran (throw in Syria) are TEACHING their children to be jihadists. Convince them to stop teaching and sponsoring (read: giving large sums of money) terrorists and the problem dwindles AT THE SOURCE. If we keep playing conventional warfare against these little cells we will never win. That's history, which I've acknowledged.

Also, it is apparent that you've never read the Qur'an or kept up with the teachings of the imams, because if you did you would know that the current state of the nation of Islam as a whole as defined by the imams is to be on a jihad. So if you're a muslim and not on a jihad, you're a disobedient muslim. Period.

But think about this. Recently a poll was conducted of muslims around the world asking them how many of them condoned violence as a method to bring about conversion to Islam (read: jihad). 15% said they thought it was a good idea. There are 1.3 BILLION muslims worldwide. So I'll do the math for you: ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY-FIVE MILLION muslims who believe violence is a good thing. You gonna negotiate with these people?
 
Oh, and as for Iran, there are soooooo many ways to whap these little pipsqueaks about the head and shoulders that anybody with a normal amount of balls (excludes the current exec and congress) could do it. Even backchannel supporting the Israelis and turning them loose on Iran would do the trick.

Dang I am so tired of being RIGHT all the time...:cool:


Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Friday, July 13, 2007 10:00 a.m. EDT

Israel 'Approved' to Strike Iran

Israel’s Minister of Strategic Affairs said he has received approval from the U.S. and Europe for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

"If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the U.S. will support us,” Avigdor Lieberman said following a meeting with NATO and European Union officials.

Lieberman said the Western powers recognized the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel, Israel Today magazine reported. But military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are "going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities,” and they are sending the message that Israel should "prevent the threat herself.”
 

Members online

Back
Top