This is a paramilitary group that works with US and Iraqi forces. They have been hugely successful in rooting out AQ and destroying them [with US help] in Anbar. This type of organization has proven itself so well that it is going to be duplicated elsewhere. The problem is that while we are arming Sunni groups we are also dismantling the Mahdi army
You are letting the Mainstream Media confuse you with their twisting of the term "militia". Sadr's army is not a militia, they are the private army of a warlord who is bent on destruction of all who don't kowtow to him. The Anbar Salvation Council's "paramilitary" force is a true militia. The United States has a long history of citizens banding together in times of trouble to fight off dangers to the community. We used to call these citizen soldiers militia, now we call them national guard.
The aim of the Anbar Salvation Council's militia is the defence of their local communities from invaders. The aim of the Sadr army is to sow death and destruction anywhere possible in order to overthrow the elected government.
The Mahdi army would not be dismantled if they were a true militia defending their communities from the foreign fighters. They are not the same thing and have not behaved in the same manner.Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 3.05.2007 @ 19:47
Also, in earlier debates when conservatives questioned the anti-war leftâ€™s often defeatist and divisive policies, we were accused of â€œquestioning their patriotism.â€
I don't question the left's patriotism. I call them the cowards and traitors that they are to their face. There is a very real difference between dissent and giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime. I don't believe for one second that the leftists do not know the difference between the two.
The left has sown the seeds of their own destruction. One of two things is going to happen. The Iraqi government is going to stabilize and the Democrats will flip-flop again and become a complete laughingstock, or, the Democrats will succeed in denying funding to Iraq and get the surrender they want. And, in a few years we will be going back to the Middle East and perhaps Spain and the Balkans and Turkey, and anyplace else that borders that cesspool known as the Middle East, to fight, not a war against ragtag insurgents but a war against millions of hate filled fanatics who are armed with the best WMDs money can buy. The outcome of this war is not in doubt, but the carnage that will be unleashed is terrible to imagine. The Islamic fascists and the left just don't understand what the U.S. military is capable of. The U.S. military could start in the morning and by mid-afternoon there would be a large smoking crater where the Middle East used to be. And, given the kind of war the Islamic fascists have in mind, that is what the result is going to be. The nuclear blackmarket that the Pakistanis set up is still very much alive and well, putting the father of their nuclear program under "house arrest" was a facade. If the Democrats surrender in Iraq, the worst of the Islamic fascists will fight with Iran for control of the oil and the petro dollars will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan. And in a few years we will be forced to go back to the Middle East to fight. And after the U.S. military destroys the Islam army in a few days, out of desperation they will turn to their nuclear bombs. Then Islam will cease to exist.
The Democratic party will not survive either turn of events.Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 1.05.2007 @ 06:12
As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq.
Mr. Moran, you are a jackass. By "alter the mission" what do you mean exactly? The power sharing arrangement that you claim does not exist is a clause in the Iraqi constitution. The main reason the Sunnis feel disenfranchised is because they boycotted the elections. Now they realize that was a big mistake.
there is nothing the US military can do to push the government off of square one and get this process moving.
Really? Can you imagine that Eisenhower would have tolerated the German government failing to live up to promises it made in order to be allowed to function again? Or, can you imagine that McArthur would have allowed the Japanese to get away with that nonsense. There is plenty the US military can do. This is where I think Bush should become more proactive. He should fly to Iraq, meet with the Iraqi government, the entire parliament and all the cabinet ministers and demand an immediate vote on legislation to fulfill the promises that were made. And if they refuse he should tell them that the US military will enforce the constitution if the parliament will not.Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 29.04.2007 @ 23:04
He has risen to the occasion in the past. He must do so again.
Really? Name once.
How about when the Taliban of Afghanistan were told to hand over al-Qeda or be destroyed? Let's see, where are the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan now? Dead or living in caves.Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 29.04.2007 @ 22:58
Mr. Moran, I just don't get you cowards. The plan for victory against the Islamic terror gangs in Iraq was laid out quite clearly by General Patraeus. The plan is very specific and easy to understand. The key problem that General Patraeus faces is the fact that his doctrine needs a troop strength to civilian ratio of 1-50 in order to be most effective. That means 500,000 troops. The general laid out the this ratio in his counter insurgency manual which is available on line. This was the ratio that was followed in Kosovo.
If the American government was serious about achieving victory in Iraq then they would stop this nonsense and call up the reserves, mobilize all the national guard units, shift units from other overseas bases like Japan, Korea, Italy, and Germany, and do whatever else is required to bring the troop levels of all the armed forces up to the level needed to sustain 500,000 troops in Iraq. Personally, I am all for mandatory military service for all us citizens upon reaching the age of 19.
The second thing that has to happen is to close the "occupation administration" in Iraq and give General Patraeus full authority over the reconstruction so that the military/political/civil administration authorities are speaking with one voice. General Eisenhower made this ability to speak with one voice a condition of his accepting the role of supreme commander in Europe during WWII.
The third thing that has to happen is to force Syria and Iran to stop arming our enemies, and to stop sending their agents into Iraq to carry out armed operations against our troops, even if this means going to war with them. We are already at war with them since they are murdering our troops. Just make the war official. I can guarantee you that the cowards in Syria and Iran will back down if faced with a WWII style war.
This is the plan that leads to victory.
I am so sick of hearing "there is no plan". The truth of the matter is that the cowards in the US government and the media don't have the stomach to face up to what will be required to ensure victory.
What is so difficult to understand about this? Following the Democrats' desire to surrender will just ensure that we fight a WWII style war which will engulf the entire region in a few years. Following the current plan might work but it will take a long time and victory is not ensured, and the troop strength to civilian ratio is currently far too low according to the doctrine of the General currently leading the effort in Iraq. So, stop all this waffling and give the General what he needs to win the war.Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 29.04.2007 @ 15:31
Actually, this could be a very good department if the Secretary was able to actually do something besides talk about doing something. Here are some of the global issues that culd easily be solved for relatively small investments which would win friends for the USA among the victims of these issues:
1. Disease. Eliminate easily cured diseases like malaria (use DDT), guinea worm, river blindness...etc, etc.
2. Clean Water. Ensure that everyone has access to clean water. This is easily done with low tech tools, the poor who need this the most can supply the labor.
3. Sanitary sewer. Ensure that everyone has access to sanitary sewer. Again, this is easily done with low tech tools, the poor who need it the most can supply the labor.
4. Electricity. Provide electricity to the undeveloped world.
5. Communication. Give the undeveloped world a communications network. Follow the example of Outer Mongolia who set up the entire country for telephone and high speed internet using a small grant and wireless technology.
6. Education. Help the undeveloped world build schools. The US can supply assistance in low tech building methods, the villagers can supply the labor. At first teachers can be from the developed world, over time teachers can be trained from the villages.
7. Starvation. Large food storage facilities should be built throughout the undeveloped world so that food supplies can be quickly sent to areas hit with catastrophe. Stocks for these storage facilities can initially come from the developed world, but over time should be renewed by stocks purchased from the undeveloped world. Food should only be distributed directly to the starving who need it, ensuring that corrupt officials do not steal it.
There could be a lot more to this list, but this is a good start.
Instead of wasting money in large "aid" programs where the money either gets stolen by corrupt officials or large contracts are given to big companies who then bring in outsiders to build large facilities that are expensive to maintain, the programs should all be based on the premise that the villagers needing the help should do the work themselves using raw materials local to them with engineering assistance and money to pay the laborers provided by the developed world. This way the villagers have a stake in the success of the project since it is their project.
A comprehensive program like this run correctly could help lift the undeveloped world into the developed world at a much lower cost than the current costs of giving "aid" in the form of cash payments to corrupt regimes who then steal the "aid".
A "Peace" department which truly wished to accomplish something and was willing to go against big money interests and do what is most practical and most beneficial for the people most directly affected by the issue could accomplish great things.
Of course, this is not what the Dhimmicrats have in mind at all when they talk of a "Peace" department.Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 15.04.2007 @ 15:25
I wholeheartedly agree, your brother is a moron and should be fired for stupidity. Don't employees have to have at least some brain cells?
Here are the points the moron made:Comment Posted By ibeecurious On 15.04.2007 @ 11:36
1) The Duke players were "asking for it", being charged with rape that is, by behaving "badly". Hmm, isn't this exactly the same as the "she asked for it because she was wearing provocative clothing" defense that rapists try to use?
2) Most miscarriages of justice are carried out against poor and minority defendents. Implying I guess that falsely prosecuting the Duke players is some sort of equal opportunity program.
3) Some of the Duke players used "racial epithets" on the night in question. Not the Duke players who were actually charged, but 'some' Duke players. So, this is a) guilt by association, and b) they asked for it (see 1 above).
4) One of the falsely accused Duke players was charged with assault after the night of the false accusation. What does that have to do with anything?
Pages (1) :