Middle East Features
By M&C News Mar 29, 2008, 16:05 GMT
In photos: 'Iraq Basra Conflict'
And Also
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Israel likely to exchange 980 Palestinian prisoners for Shalit
- 2. Iran wants to build ten more enrichment sites (2nd Roundup)
- 3. Barak calls for inspectors to police settlements freeze (Roundup)
- 4. Israeli ministers from Netanyahu's party slam settlement freeze
- 5. Three family members killed in Egypt holiday crash
Older Talkback
page: 1
Why are the Mehdi and Sadrists such tubs of lard?
'Why are the Mehdi and Sadrists such tubs of lard?'
Because basically they are not trained killers. They are just folks protecting their family and property. Sorry to break the news to you, but the U.S. army ARE trained killers that are invading these guys home, infact they flew a few 1000 miles with billions of dollars worth of weapons to kill these folks in their own back yards. Sometimes [your] life stinks when you face reality.
'They are just folks protecting their family and property. '
Wrong, moron. They are criminal thugs wanting to assert themselves over their turf like any other gang.
'Sorry to break the news to you, but the U.S. army ARE trained killers'
Indeed. Good on them.
'the U.S. army ARE trained killers that are invading these guys home,'
It is the Iraqi army doing the invading... can't you read 'lance'?
'infact they flew a few 1000 miles with billions of dollars worth of weapons to kill these folks in their own back yards'
No worries, Iran spent almost as much arming the fat tubs of lard.
'Sometimes [your] life stinks when you face reality.'
How would you know?
'How would you know?'
By the way you sit around and name call people. Fundamentally, the US troops are the most sophisticated trained killers in the world, they did invade Iraq by traveling 1000s of miles from their home, no Iraq national ever caused any (significant) terrorism (no more than some U.S. citizens do for example) in the U.S., Iraqis are fighting for their home turf and most Iraqis are just like people in the U.S. For example, in the U.S. they had a little party called the U.S. Civil War where U.S. people bludgeoned each other in a mass kill-fest like none saw before or after (even compared to WWII). Give the Iraqis a chance to make it on their own and be a little reflective too. The guy in this picture is not too different in proportions than the average McDonalds customer in the U.S. and probably very similar in other respects as well.
'How would you know?'
Was referring to facing up to reality. Great comprehension skills there 'lance'.
' Fundamentally, the US troops are the most sophisticated trained killers in the world'
Good.
', no Iraq national ever caused any (significant) terrorism'
Tell that to the Kurds that Saddam gassed or the Marsh Arabs that he murdered or the 400,000 people he put in mass graves in his own country. Tell that to the million people he killed in the 2 wars he started. Tell that to the Israelis who were being killed by suicide bombers that Saddam paid.
'no more than some U.S. citizens do for example) in the U.S'
Again 'lance' when are you going to face up to reality.
'Give the Iraqis a chance to make it on their own and be a little reflective too. '
That is what we are trying to do 'lance', but people like you want to turn the country over to Iran and Al Qaeda to let the murder spree continue..
'The guy in this picture is not too different in proportions than the average McDonalds customer in the U.S. and probably very similar in other respects as well.'
I have yet to see a swarthy tub of lard running around with an assault rifle picking people off at random on the instructions of a turban wearing, serial killing, ranting mullah who is channeling a long dead pedophile prophet in the USA. So no, thankfully there is no similarity 'lance'.
'but people like you want to turn the country over to Iran and Al Qaeda to let the murder spree continue'
... uh, you do realize that is exactly what Saddam Hussein was preventing? Sure, he put down an insurrection very harshly, as harsh as the U.S. troops did. However, he was a leader in a place of the world which demands huge investments of security, even torture as the U.S. has found out.
Of course, I do not subscribe to the methods of Saddam Hussein but nor do I subscribe to the methods of the U.S. military. They are both fundamentally flawed; as is your hate.
Peace be with you.
'uh, you do realize that is exactly what Saddam Hussein was preventing? '
The millions of people that he killed aside (You idiot) he isn't going to be preventing anything. They strung him up so another one of your heroes
'However, he was a leader in a place of the world which demands huge investments of security, even torture as the U.S. has found out.'
Well then, I guess you wont mind then if we do what it takes to rid the streets of Iraqi tubs of lard with assault rifles.
'Of course, I do not subscribe to the methods of Saddam Hussein but nor do I subscribe to the methods of the U.S. military.'
Well gee, you just said that place in the world requires such methods... You implied that the savages there can't be controlled without periodically putting them in mass graves like Saddam did. You should head on over there 'lance' and show them your peaceful approach to resolving the whole shebang. (Like they wont saw your head off)
'as is your hate.'
I do not hate anything other then stupidity and willful blindness.
'Peace be with you.'
Shove it.
Remind me again — who’s losing in Basra?
posted at 9:48 am on March 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
When the Iraqi government finally took the long-expected action to establish control of Basra after the British pullback left it in the hands of militias and gangsters, suddenly the media declared that the country had reached the brink of collapse. They highlighted stories of defections from the Iraqi military and opined that the surge had failed. Moqtada al-Sadr would finally achieve his goal of controlling the South and would expose the Baghdad government as a house of cards.
Guess which side just sued for peace?
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr offered Sunday to pull his fighters off the streets of Basra and other cities if the government halts raids against his followers and releases prisoners held without charge.
The offer was contained in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
An Iraqi government spokesman welcomed al-Sadr’s order, saying it was “positive and responsive.”
Al-Sadr demanded that the government issue a general amnesty and release all detainees. The statement said he also “disavows” anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices.
Anyone who follows the news closely in Iraq knew this day would come. The British left a power vacuum behind in the south that the Baghdad government could not fill at the time, and Sadr and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council’s Badr Brigades filled it instead. They have fought each other and some smaller Shi’ite groups for control of the streets ever since 2005, as Steven Vincent tried to warn people just before they murdered him in Basra. The Iraqi government had no choice but to challenge the militias for control of Basra and the surrounding areas, but they waited until the Iraqi Army had enough strength to succeed.
Did our media give anyone this context? No. They reported it as some kind of spontaneous eruption of rebellion without noting at all that a nation can hardly be considered sovereign while its own security forces cannot enter a large swath of its own territory. And in the usual defeatist tone, they reported that our mission in Iraq had failed without waiting to see what the outcome of the battle would be.
Sadr now wants to disavow anyone with a gun. The Mahdis, which found themselves on the short end of the stick, have just watched their Fearless Leader surrender — again — and this time leaving them twisting in the wind. That isn’t the action of a victor. Perhaps our media would like to explain that in the context of their clueless reporting so far.
Update: Unilateral retreat:
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday that he was pulling his fighters off the streets nationwide and called on the government to stop raids against his followers and free them from prison.
And Nouri al-Maliki remains in Basra. Buh-bye, Sadr.
Will They Admit Progress?
Posted by: Curt @ 7:15 pm in MSM Bias, The Iraqi War
Great job as usual by Michael Goldfarb in describing the fighting in Basra. Basically saying that those who moan and cry about Iraq always like to point out that the militia’s are still running rampant. Well now Maliki is doing something about it and what do we get? More whining. Michael:
Faced with an intractable problem, Maliki bet big and confronted the most powerful militia in Iraq. When one looks at the rest of the Middle East, it’s not at all apparent that the region’s more problematic regimes are inclined to do the same. Take Pakistan, where broad swaths of the country are controlled by militias, the Taliban, al Qaeda. If only Musharraf had the resolve to violently confront these threats to his government’s sovereignty. It’s the same in the Palestinian territories, where Mahmoud Abbas must rely on the IDF to keep him in power. Abbas might be willing to confront Hamas, but he is unable. And in Lebanon, a weak central government lacks the resolve to strike at Hezbollah. It strikes me as a good thing that Maliki can and will go after those who directly challenge his government–even to the New York Times it looks like progress.
Meanwhile Obama said this today about the fight:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
Really? There are tensions in Iraq that have not gone away? Get outta here….
No one has said The Surge has done this, not Bush, not McCain, no one. Does anyone really expect tensions to ease in a few short months, or years? Hell, there are tensions in this country that have existed for centuries, from political to racial. It’s called life. And to suggest that he, or anyone else, can reduce those “tensions” by running from the fight is just naive and foolish. If we leave before that country can defend itself from outside influence, and from within, then you can bet your ass that there will a bit more going on other then some tension. There will be wholesale bloodshed as al-Qaeda takes that country as its own.
Abe Greenwald:
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraqi government has been criticized for not taking advantage of the reduction in violence caused by The Surge. Well, here they are stepping up and the MSM quickly steps up and gives the gloomiest reporting possible. You would think that those who want us out of Iraq would take heart in this fight…..one more step closer to getting out of there.
But not if it means they can’t bash Bush.
Abe Greenwald - 03.30.2008 - 14:08
From today’s New York Times:
“I don’t want to suggest I’ve absorbed all of the facts,” about the situation in Basra, Mr. Obama said. But, he continued, what he had heard “appears consistent with my general analysis. The presence of our troops and their excellence has resulted in some reduction in violence. It has not resolved the underlying tensions that exist in Iraq.”
As if that’s not everyone’s analysis.
Neither George Bush or John McCain or David Petraeus has ever said anything to contradict Obama’s valueless declaration. They have never suggested that the surge had “resolved the underlying tensions.”
This is the all-or-nothing rhetorical game the Democrats play with Iraq. They pretend the McCain side of the debate makes outlandishly sunny claims and then they “disprove” them. They overstate non-scandalous aspects of both McCain’s Iraq plan (the hundred-year war) and our present Iraq strategy: Last Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton said, “President Bush seems to want to keep as many people as possible in Iraq. It’s a clear admission that the surge has failed to accomplish its goals.” Wrong and wrong. And shameful, to boot.
So, Obama admits he has not “absorbed all of the facts,” but that’s because he doesn’t need to. He just needs to spin stories of violence into the narrative of Bush’s failed miracle. However, if he bothered to “absorb” just a little more of the admittedly confusing Basra situation, he’d have to confront the conflict’s one crystalline detail: the British pulled out too soon. And there’s no way for him to spin that.
»Back to Contentions
Acknowledging Iran's War [Steve Schippert]
In the great game that is the largely one-sided Iranian conflict with American forces in Iraq (and the greater international psychological image of the American presence there), many factors are in play right now. And I think Richard Fernandez at The Belmont Club is on to something here.
One of the rumored frictions between Petraeus and former CENTCOM CINC 'Fox' Fallon centered around how strongly to respond to threats from Iranian sponsored groups. And Sadr's men would fall under that category. Maj Gen Paul Vallely was quoted as saying CENTCOM may not have been done all that it could to prevent Iran from endangering American troops.
“The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. “We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq.”
I said yesterday that '[i]t's not entirely up to us whether or not we are in conflict with Iran.' The Iranians have (and have had) plenty to say about that.
But for goodness sakes, don't take General David Petraeus's word for it.
Oh, no. Instead, cry out, 'O Admiral Fallon, where art thou?' That should help.
And with Admiral Fallon out at CENTCOM, Iran has lost some level of protection, if the rumored friction between him and General Petraeus is believed by the Iranians (what you and I think does not matter here). That may be driving Iran's latest move in the great game: Stoking the embers of conflict.
This strategy affords Iran two things: Engineered instability within Iraq that plays greatly to their advantage and, equally significant, the ability to prod the U.S. military into more aggressive public statements about Iranian involvement in Iraq. The Iranians are smart, and they know that a significant number of voices in America are ready, willing and able to continue painting the Bush Administration as overly aggressive and seeking a hot war with Iran.
Of course, the fact that Iran is actually prosecuting such a war through its proxies is less important than criticizing the president. And the Iranians know this. Stoking the conflict and drawing anti-Iranian words and military actions from Petraeus and the administration on the heels of Admiral Fallon's exit is a move to shape perception and position. If one looks at how 'Fox' Fallon's exit was portrayed in the U.S .media - as the loss of presumably the one sane mind between the Bush Administration and war with Iran - the tone of the media response to U.S. military action against (barely) cloaked Iranian aggression in Iraq is predictable.
For what it's worth, readers may appreciate a bit of a flashback to a 2007 analysis of the dynamic now at play: A New Course In Iraq...For Iran.
As recently as mid-August, Major General Rick Lynch said that his forces and military intelligence were tracking about 50 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps in his area of operations, which includes the southern edge of Baghdad and some of the provincial areas to its south, including Karbala. Of the IRGC operatives known to be active in his region, Major General Lynch said, “We’ve got about 50 of those. They go back and forth. There’s a porous border.”
And just across those porous borders lie myriad Iranian terrorist training camps, teaching, arming and paying Iraqis to fight their proxy war against America and the Iraqi state, seeking instability in Iraq in the immediate and increased Iranian infiltration, influence and control in the longer term. And the better they can achieve this, the fewer of its own valuable and highly trained Quds Force operatives and terror facilitators need be put at physical risk of being killed or captured in Iraq by a new American commander [who] clearly seeks to engage without hesitation those within his Iraqi theater of operations who kill his men, Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. Even the fearsome Iranians who never lack for threat and bluster.
So, while General Petraeus reported that Iran’s Quds Force and their Lebanese Hizballah terrorist facilitators have vacated Iraqi territory, he did not say that the Iranian threat has abated as a result nor did he say that all Iranians have left the theater. He, in fact, said just the opposite: The Iranian threat continues to grow.
That was in September, 2007. He was clearly correct.
Meanwhile, Muqtada al-Sadr is having statements read in Iraq on his behalf. It is hard for Muqi to deliver a speech in Najaf, Iraq when he is in Iran. And his written words are no doubt the product of Iranian direction. Remember, Sadr has always been little more than a slumlord from Sadr City, named for his father, who was decidedly of greater import than his son. And his Mahdi Army has always been a consortium of simple street thugs. Iran now finds them useful and trains and arms them - and directs Daddy's son to play the right part.
But how much of this matters? Any counter-move(s) by General Petraeus to react to Iranian aggression will be portrayed as a hawkish administration seeking yet another war.
It doesn't really matter much, apparently, that Iran has already found that war. Does it?
I'm a soldier who is over here in sadr city right now as I type this message. You are an Ignorant coward and need to shut your mouth about things that you know absolulty nothing about. People like you are worse than the terrorist that we fight everyday, worthless ignorant babble helps no one. Go to hell
Forty children under the age of 10 have been killed by government and occupation troops. They should have shown their pictures too!!
'Forty children under the age of 10 have been killed by government and occupation troops. They should have shown their pictures too!!'
Bull.
'I'm a soldier who is over here in sadr city right now as I type this message.'
If that's true THANK YOU!
Lance is this mal-adjusted Pakistain kid, he lives in England, been trolling this board for yrs. AKA Ferox, David, White Women, Allah.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story