Iraq Assessment

You do realize that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" was never of any real significance, right? And that it has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, right? And that it didn't exist until we showed up in Iraq, right? And that it is nothing more than the Bush Administration trying to confuse the American public into thinking that Iraq had something to do with the terrorist attacks, right?And the lack of historical knowledge is depressing. Yes, violence is down...to the same levels it was when we were saying the level of violence was unacceptable.And the electrical grid is still in shambles, providing only an hour or two of electricity per household per day. It was better before we invaded and we still haven't fixed it.The "surge" did nothing. It simply moved the violence from where we were to where we weren't.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

I did targeting packets on several of them.

---

Irrelevant. I didn't say they were a figment of the imagination. I said they had no connection to Al Qaeda and were of no real significance.Do you have any evidence otherwise? You're the one claiming they were of some concern, therefore it is your burden of proof. But since you ask, I'll take on your burden:The Washington Post, March 18, 2007, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq May Not Be Threat Here" Later in that same article: So where is your evidence, Tal?

quote:

---

I can't get into specifics because it is still classified, but IEDs, Sniper attacks, grenade attacks, small arms fire, and RPG attacks are all WAY down from this time last year.

---

Bullshit. Violence levels are not classified. It's how we know that the level of violence hasn't decreased from where it was a year ago when it was considered unacceptable.And burden of proof is on you. You're the one who needs to justify your claim.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

Hey, don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs.

---

Then you have evidence to back up your claims?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

Besides what I've already posted?

---

What you posted didn't go to the question as to whether AQI was of any consequence, existed before we went in there, or had any connections to Al Qaeda.Neither of your links speaks to those items, either. Again, I am not saying AQI is a figment of the imagination. I am pointing out, as was shown, that AQI was of no real significance, did not exist until we showed up, and has no connection to Al Qaeda.Where is your evidence that "Al Qaeda in Iraq" has any connection to Al Qaeda? Again, pointing out that al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda is not sufficient. That simply points him out to be a wannabe. You have to show that there was any dealings between the two or that Al Qaeda established Al Qaeda in Iraq.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Tal, are you going to actually provide any evidence or are you going to simply spout snarky comments?Where is the evidence that AQI had any connection to Al Qaeda? That al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda is not sufficient. You need to show that Al Qaeda returned the favor. Otherwise, he was just a wannabe.Where is the evidence that AQI was any threat to the US? All the sources we've both provided have directly stated they weren't.And if the situation in Iraq is better, why was 2007 the worst year for deaths? 899 US Soldiers died this year, the worst ever. Iraqi civilian deaths were up, too, to 18,610 from 13,813 last year.When this was the worst year ever, how does that make things "going well"?Yeah, yeah...we all know...you've seen the reports, but you can't tell us about them. We believe that, you know. We really do.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

Al Qaeda in Iraq has always been a significant problem.

---

Incorrect. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been a nuisance regarding our actions in Iraq. They have no connection to Al Qaeda, have no designs upon the US other than to get us out of Iraq, and became the scapegoat for every single attack. The group did not exist until we showed up and has no ties to terrorism.

quote:

---

There are plenty of Saddam and Ba'ath loyalists who still exist.

---

I never said they didn't. The question is why the Bush Administration and Tal and now you are trying to pass off AQI as some sort of grand threat to the US. Remember, "We have to fight them over there so that we don't fight them over here," right? As if AQI had any plans on the US. Where is your evidence that they are tied to terrorism?

quote:

---

If you were the president, what would you do to solve the Iraq issue? Would you pull out immediately, would you withdraw slowly, would you stay to stabilize the country?

---

Um, if I were the president, I wouldn't have invaded in the first place. But if I had inherited the complete disaster, I would start engaging in diplomacy to get the international community involved. The country is in the middle of a civil war. There is no reason for our Soldiers to be their targets. The country is probably going to split up into three and Turkey needs to get over it (again, there's that diplomacy thing).

quote:

---

Its a warzone, not a stripmall -- arguably the least destructive war.

---

You're missing the point: The Bush administration is LYING about the situation in Iraq and Tal is buying it. They are claiming that things are getting better when, in fact, things are much worse.He (and apparently you) are the type of person to whine about how we "never hear any good news from Iraq" when there really isn't that much good news to report. "Where are the reports of the schools we built?" They aren't there because the reporters were begged by the teachers not to divulge the fact that a school was built because if it gets out, then it becomes a target and gets blown up. That is not progress.

quote:

---

But it appears the Surge has worked.

---

How? All it did was move things to other parts of the country. We're playing whack-a-mole. The entire point behind the surge was to provide an environment for the Iraqi government to meet its benchmarks......which they summarily failed to do. So just like everything else the Bush administration has done with regard to Iraq, they retroactively changed the justification for it. Except that turned out to be a collosal failure, too.

quote:

---

because AQ doesn't give a rats ass.

---

What does Al Qaeda have to do with anything? They're not in Iraq. You've fallen for the propaganda, NJ. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. They're in the middle of a civil war that we started. We won't be able to stop it until we get the diplomats in...which the Bushies will never do.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

obvious Child writes:

quote:

---

My question is why didn't the US just make up some reason that would make AQ stay quiet for a while

---

Because Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq.Because the entire premise behind the Bush administration's approach to Iraq is that we can't leave because the terrorists (of which there aren't any in Iraq) will just wait for us to leave and then "follow us home!" (as if they can't find the US on a map and never considered the fact that NOW would be the perfect time to come and attack because all of our troops and materiel are in Iraq). To suddenly shift course would be to be shown "weak" and "caving into the defeat-o-crats."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Since al-Zarqawi and Al Qaeda were supporting opposite sides of the conflict in Iraq, it's hard to justify the claim that al-Zarqawi was an Al Qaeda operative. He attacked the Shia more than the US. This is not surprising since "Al Qaeda in Iraq" wasn't really focused on the US but rather on establishing control in Iraq.Where's the evidence, Tal?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

Al Qaeda, arguably the most prolific terrorist organization in modern history, has no ties to terrorism?

---

Who said anything about Al Qaeda? We're talking about "Al Qaeda in Iraq." The two are not the same. AQI has no connection to Al Qaeda.

quote:

---

So, just let the country go to shit and call that "diplomacy?"

---

Huh? What part of "diplomacy" equates to "let the country go to shit"?And by the way, the country has already gone to shit. Things are worse now than before we invaded. They are in the middle of a civil war and we will not be able to stop it. The country is going to be split into pieces and the sooner we realize this and work to make it happen, the better off everybody will be.

quote:

---

Tal is there right NOW!

---

What does that have to do with anything? Just because he's in the military and in a specific location, that means he knows everything that is going on? NJ, the Bush administration has lied to everybody involved at every level regarding this invasion. The majority of Soldiers still think Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Why? Because the Bush administration lied to the Soldiers.

quote:

---

They don't mention the number of schools that have been built or the progress in general.

---

First, there aren't that many being built. There's no electricity or water for them.Second, if it gets out that a school was built, it becomes a target and gets blown up real quick. Thus, the reporters do their best to keep the people of Iraq alive and keep quiet about it.

quote:

---

Source, please...

---

That would be the reporters. You have been paying attention, yes? You've not read anything about the bomb threats to schools? Oh, but that would have been reported on NPR. And we all know how misinformed NPR listeners are....

quote:

---

You could almost swear that you pray for disaster

---

Prove it. Show me a single quote that even hints at that. Note the doublethink going on here, NJ: You're claiming that because I want to bring the Soldiers home so that they don't die, that means I want them to die. Does that make any sense to you?And by the way, you have no idea what I do for a living, do you?

quote:

---

The idea is to siege a city.

---

That wasn't what we were told when Bush said that he needed to do it. The justification for adding more dead bodies was so that the Iraqi government could stabilize and meet its benchmarks. But when it became apparent that that wasn't going to happen, they changed their minds and came up with another justification. And yet, 2007 was the most violent year ever, so the new justification hasn't panned out, either.

quote:

---

You keep doing this with the troop increase, until the entire country is secured

---

And 20,000 Soldiers is going to do that? When you really need 15 times that amount? Since the escalation was doomed to failure and everybody knew it, what was the point? We shouldn't throw Soldiers at the problem just to have them die.Again, NJ: You need to explain how wanting to bring our Soldiers home so they don't die somehow means that I want them to die.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Rrhain is alleging that the violence is only because of a civil war. That's not even remotely the case. Sectarian violence is just that -- sectarian violence.

---

Ahem."Sectarian violence" is, by definition, "civil war." It was coined in order to be a euphemism for it. If the Bush administration had to admit that Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, then it would have to admit that it failed in its mission to bring stability and peace to the region.But simply calling it "sectarian violence" doesn't change the fact that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war.

quote:

---

This is not to say that groups like Al Qaeda aren't funding the insurgency, because they are!

---

Except they aren't. There is no support from Al Qaeda to AQI. In fact, Al Qaeda does not like AQI because AQI keeps on attacking the Sunni.

quote:

---

If the people that refer to themselves, or who the Bush Administration refers to as, Al Qaeda (in Iraq), are not in fact affiliated with Al Qaeda, then who are they?

---

You mean you don't know? You have no idea who al-Zarqawi was? What his history was? AQI is nothing more than the renamed group al-Zarqawi was previously fronting: Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. They changed their name when al-Zarqawi decided he was a wannabe.They have no connection to Al Qaeda.

quote:

---

And how exactly do you know that they aren't affiliated with Al Qaeda?

---

Because Al Qaeda doesn't claim them.

quote:

---

Was the assassination of Bhutto also not affiliated with AQ?

---

It wasn't.

quote:

---

Where are you getting your information?

---

From Al Qaeda. Who would better know?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

obvious Child responds to me:

quote:

---

You can apply that argument to all of the groups.

---

Well, no. There are terrorists who are plotting against the United States, specifically. One of them is called "Al Qaeda" and their leader, Osama bin Laden, is still at large wandering between Afghanistan and Pakistan, pretty much because the Bush administration has completely forgotten about him. Bush said so, himself: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him."And despite the fact that we were "fighting them over there," Al Qaeda still managed to hit us over here as London and Madrid and Bali can tell us. The reason Al Qaeda hasn't hit the US has nothing to do with any state of preparedness on our part.

quote:

---

The claim against a time table was that the various terrorists groups would simply lay low and wait till we were gone.

---

But there weren't any terrorists there...at least, not "terrorists" in the sense that they were plotting against the US. There are plenty of combatants in Iraq who are doing their best to take control of the country. That's why they're in civil war.As for lying about our leaving, that would never have flown with either the military or the population. To tell the ranks that they're going home on a specific date and then to yank it away would incite rebellion. Granted, we've been toying with the troops as it is, constantly extending their deployment tours beyond all sanity, but we've never told them that they were getting out.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Tal responds to me:

quote:

---

You keep replying to me asking, "Where is the evidence?" and I keep supplying you with more open source information.

---

Except it seems you don't bother to read your own sources. From your first one: Given Musharraf's current position, do you really think you can trust what he says?And your second source is Fox, which is to be dismissed out of hand. Besides, it doesn't show any connection between Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq. It just says that there are videos available of Al Qaeda people with one talking about al-Zarqawi.You seem to have a very black-and-white sort of view about this: That the only possible relationship between AQ and AQI were that of perfect allies or bitter enemies and thus any positive comment by one toward the other means they're bosom buddies. AQ certainly didn't mind AQI's attacks upon US forces and their use as a political rallying cry against the United States was certainly useful, but that doesn't make them connected anymore than China's "Most Favored Nation" status here in the US means we are allies.There is no connection between Al Qaeda and "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and you have not shown a single shred of proof that there is.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

obvious Child responds to me:

quote:

---

And where did you get that analysis from?

---

From paying attention to the news.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.