D) Most of the people are dead or gone.

How about in Afghanistan? How's THAT going?

Maybe it's the eggnog talking, but this seems weird. The public gets the notice that Iran isn't a nuclear threat after all, and now this after all of the recent saber-rattling? Something seems fishy to me.

FTA: but the decline in their use and in overall attacks "has to be attributed to an Iranian policy decision," David M. Satterfield, Iraq coordinator and senior adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said in an interview.

What? Another story of Iran supporting Iraqi insurgents where the only evidence is the word of someone from the administration?

Wow. Whodathunkit?

e) Americans and Saudis arming the "they used to be insurgents but now they're on our side" Sunnis

Therion: e) Americans and Saudis arming the "they used to be insurgents but now they're on our side" Sunnis


Which is just making the Iraqi national government ecstatic.

HomerButt: Maybe it's the eggnog talking, but this seems weird. The public gets the notice that Iran isn't a nuclear threat after all, and now this after all of the recent saber-rattling? Something seems fishy to me.

Agreed. I think there's more going on behind the scenes regarding those two events that people aren't really putting together.

I wouldn't be shocked if both countries' leaderships realized that direct (or even sustained indirect) conflict is not in the best interest of either nation. This could be a quiet tit-for-tat good faith steps to cool down tensions.

D) the U.S. reaching out to local leaders.

Afternoon_Delight:



it's his smile, isn't it...

HomerButt: Maybe it's the eggnog talking

You have talking eggnog?

How about in Afghanistan? How's THAT going

Pretty good And i speak from experience thanks for asking deuschbag.

Obfuscation. It's IRAN!1 ELEVENTLY!1 QUICK ATTACK IRAQ!

So you're supporting a war against an undefined enemy in Iraq because it's really Iran?

F) Ann Coulter somehow converted them all to Christianity.

All three, plus a fourth group where Sunnis are finally ticked off at Al Qaeda (which is a Sunni group, not an Iranian backed Shiite group).

There's no way a military surge would have these results alone without help from the other three.

Decrease in violence in Iraq due to: a) Iraqis tired of fighting with themselves, b) the surge by American troops, or c) Iran Muqtada al-Sadr reining in the violent Shiite militias it supports he commands?

Remember him? You don't hear the name anymore, because the Bush administration wants to pin this on Iran. But guess what? All this pullback was of Sadr's Mahdi Army. They disappear fully, Iraq is close enough to stable for us to leave.

Satterfield agreed that Iran was not acting out of "altruism" but rather from "alarm at what was being done by the groups they were backing in terms of their own long-term interests."

What a radical concept. Longterm consequences to foreign policy actions...

IlGreven: Remember him?

Yep.
I remember Saddam repeating his name in contempt just before the trap dropped.

helix400: All three, plus a fourth group where Sunnis are finally ticked off at Al Qaeda (which is a Sunni group, not an Iranian backed Shiite group).

There's no way a military surge would have these results alone without help from the other three.

I love the ramadan spike.

bronyaur1: How about in Afghanistan? How's THAT going

chu2dogg: Pretty good And i speak from experience thanks for asking deuschbag.

Huge FAIL.

Stupendous FAIL.

Epic FAIL.

And those are just from this weekend.

Three FAILs means that in fact, YOU, chu2dogg: are the "deuschbag," douchebag.

helix400:

Sorry, guy, but your own graph shows the truth. Surge announced early 2007, really kicked in in June and July 2007 (when the additional troops actually arrived and took the field), violence takes a nosedive. You can pretend the other things had a lot to do with it, but the vast majority came from putting more soldiers on the ground and kicking the bad guys around a LOT. The Iraqis say this, the US military say this, and even folks like Harry Reid say this now.

The previous method, "talk to them and try to get a consensus while drawing down troop levels," the basic Democratic strategy, DIDN'T WORK. Every time we listen to you guys ("take more time, let them get ready, let diplomacy do its job"), things go sour.

Even the Dem leadership admits the surge worked. Live with it. You guys were wrong.

cirby: helix400:

Sorry, guy, but your own graph shows the truth. Surge announced early 2007, really kicked in in June and July 2007 (when the additional troops actually arrived and took the field), violence takes a nosedive. You can pretend the other things had a lot to do with it, but the vast majority came from putting more soldiers on the ground and kicking the bad guys around a LOT. The Iraqis say this, the US military say this, and even folks like Harry Reid say this now.

The previous method, "talk to them and try to get a consensus while drawing down troop levels," the basic Democratic strategy, DIDN'T WORK. Every time we listen to you guys ("take more time, let them get ready, let diplomacy do its job"), things go sour.

Even the Dem leadership admits the surge worked. Live with it. You guys were wrong.

So what's the return on investment?

FlameDuck: So what's the return on investment?

We prevented 9/11 times one hundred.

cirby: Every time we listen to you guys ("take more time, let them get ready, let diplomacy do its job"), things go sour.

At what point did this administration listen to the democrats over the entire course of this war?

Difficulty: While the democrats were disagreeing with them.

VonFlapjack: You have talking eggnog?

That's the best kind!

FlameDuck: So what's the return on investment?

HowlingFrog: We prevented 9/11 times one hundred.

Thank you Professor HowlingFrog from the University of Pulling Numbers Outta My Ass to Back My Lame Argument.

I'm convinced.

It's because there's only like, a few dozen Iraqis left alive.

/is are children learning yet?

(US Ambassador to Iraq) Crocker said in a telephone interview from Baghdad, "I am real modest about what I think I understand on Iranian actions".

That's a start.

HowlingFrog: FlameDuck: So what's the return on investment?

We prevented 9/11 times one hundred.

You mean Inflicted rather than Prevented, right?

Dr. Farkenstein: Thank you Professor HowlingFrog from the University of Pulling Numbers Outta My Ass to Back My Lame Argument.


You're welcome.

Yeah, if not for these efforts, we might be saying, "Never forget 81.818181818181" today.

Alphax: You mean Inflicted rather than Prevented, right?

We didn't knock down any skyscrapers in Iraq. There aren't any, duh.
What we DID do is force Saddam to move his nuclear arsenal and mobile biological weapon labs to Syria, because Top Secret documents prove that he would have otherwise sold them to his good buddy Osama.

And all the liberals would have been responsible for what would have happened then.

Alphax: You mean Inflicted rather than Prevented, right?

We weren't the ones doing the sectarian killings.

HowlingFrog: Alphax: You mean Inflicted rather than Prevented, right?

We didn't knock down any skyscrapers in Iraq. There aren't any, duh.
What we DID do is force Saddam to move his nuclear arsenal and mobile biological weapon labs to Syria, because Top Secret documents prove that he would have otherwise sold them to his good buddy Osama.

And all the liberals would have been responsible for what would have happened then.

Now I'm sure you're pulling my leg.

HowlingFrog: What we DID do is force Saddam to move his nuclear arsenal and mobile biological weapon labs to Syria, because Top Secret documents prove that he would have otherwise sold them to his good buddy Osama.

If they're Top Secret, why do you know about them?

KaponoFor3: We weren't the ones doing the sectarian killings.

Nope, we just opened the door for them.

Persepolis: Nope, we just opened the door for them.

Sure. But I don't think that justifies laying more of the responsibility for the mass killings on the Americans than, you know, those sectarian assholes that were actually doing the killing.

HomerButt: If they're Top Secret, why do you know about them?

I'm sorry, I'm not authorized to tell you that.

"Osama, please purchase these weapons, which don't exist would be hard to utilize against America, but easy to turn around on myself.

Your best bud,
Saddam"

HowlingFrog: I'm sorry, I'm not authorized to tell you that.

Heh!

Maybe Im wrong but ever since the war began death tolls have increasingly gone down in winter months and then have a dramatic increase during the summer. Lets wait till the heat comes back then maybe we will be able to tell if the surge is actually working


The Offical Drink of the Iraq War!

KaponoFor3: Sure. But I don't think that justifies laying more of the responsibility for the mass killings on the Americans than, you know, those sectarian assholes that were actually doing the killing.

Of course.

In the same light, we can't say that we are totally faultless. I feel it's safe to say that NONE of this would have happened had we not invaded for (debatable reasons)

BAD ANALOGY ALERT. (don't read further if you don't like horrible analogies) It's like if you throw a gun in a zoo and one of the animals with an opposable thumb goes on a shooting spree. The monkey did all the killing, but none of that would have happened had we not have thrown in the gun.

I'd perfer an analogy of people going to some small town and killing all the law enforcement officials. You think they have something to do with the increased crime rate that follows?

Persepolis: BAD ANALOGY ALERT

WORSE ANALOGY ALERT.

You know who else held a door open with unforeseen fatal consequences?

Persepolis: I feel it's safe to say that NONE of this would have happened had we not invaded for (debatable reasons)

You never know -- it very well may have. Iranian leadership hated Saddam, right? They seemed to be intending to begin to assert themselves as a regional power in the Middle East as this decade began. It's purely speculation, but who's to say the mullahs wouldn't have started stirring up shiat among the Shiite majority in Iraq? We could see such sectarian killing as a result, especially if Saddam cracked down hard on the Shiite community. Then Iran feels compelled to support its Shiite allies.

KaponoFor3: It's purely speculation,

Not only that, but in my estimation, very far fetched speculation. And not a sound defence either.

ANOTHER BAD ANALOGY.. this time in play form!

Judge: Why did you rape her?
Defendant: Eh, someone probably would have. Did you see the neighborhood I raped her in? Horrible place.

Persepolis: ANOTHER BAD ANALOGY.. this time in play form!

Man, your analogies have been bad today, lol.

It is speculation for sure, but I don't know if it is as far fetched as you believe.

KaponoFor3: Man, your analogies have been bad today, lol.

They're bad everyday.

KaponoFor3: It is speculation for sure, but I don't know if it is as far fetched as you believe.

I think so. For all the underhanded things the clerics in Iran do, they have never once in their 30 years tried to stir up shiat in Iraq. They know the blowback would be disastrous. And speaking as someone who lost family memebers in the Iran/Iraq war NO Iranian would like to see another conflict like that.

Now to think they MIGHT have done this I do think is far fetched. Especially when bringing it up as an excuse (if thats what was intended) to US intervention in the area, which inarguably DID lead to the current strife we're seeing in the region.

Persepolis: They know the blowback would be disastrous. And speaking as someone who lost family memebers in the Iran/Iraq war NO Iranian would like to see another conflict like that.

No one wants to see a conflict like that obviously. Massive death is inevitably the result. I wasn't using it as an excuse for the killing that has effectively occurred on the US' watch (at least in the manner of providing security). I was trying to say that the sectarian killing could possible have occurred even without the US entering the country. Obviously we made the condition much more likely to occur with our post-war fark ups (durrr... let's disband the Iraqi army)

KaponoFor3: I was trying to say that the sectarian killing could possible have occurred even without the US entering the country. Obviously we made the condition much more likely to occur with our post-war fark ups (durrr... let's disband the Iraqi army)

Ok. I can agree with that.

Still doesn't make me feel better about it. Both as an American, and as someone with family in the region.

Persepolis:
At what point did this administration listen to the democrats over the entire course of this war?

Remember the six months-plus of farting around while waiting for the Dems to finally agree, giving Saddam and his buddies (and pretty much everyone else who doesn't like us in that region) to prepare, instead of going in fast and hard before they had a chance to get ready? So they could do such charming things as dispersing their ammo dumps (to schools and hospitals), or getting their money out of the country?

That.