+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 22

Thread: Who's on First?

  1. #1
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Who's on First?

    Who's On First?


    By now you are probably confused. Don't feel bad, it is getting a bit complicated. But I am sure there's a well-oiled plan behind it all. Let's see if we can figure it out.

    The minute I picked up my morning paper I just knew millions of Americans will be wondering if maybe this was misprint:


    ......U.S. Arming Sunni Insurgent Groups in Iraq
    BAGHDAD, June 11 (UPI) -- U.S. forces in Iraq are reportedly expanding a strategy tried in Anbar Province of arming Sunni Arab groups to fight against militants linked to al-Qaida....According to the newspaper, U.S. commanders held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been particularly strong. Many of the groups have had past links to al-Qaida but grew disillusioned with its tactics, particularly suicide bombings that have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, the newspaper says. In exchange for U.S. backing, the Sunni groups have agreed to fight al-Qaida and halt attacks against American units. (Full)


    Yes, it was the Sunnis that started the post-Saddam insurgency, killing US troops and thousands of Iraqi Shiites. And yes, it was Sunnis that teamed up with al-Qaida to fight the US occupation. But that's so yesterday. Now the Sunnis have added al-Qaida to their enemies list. And, as our Commander-in-Chief likes to say, “we adjust.”

    This “adjustment” was triggered (excuse the pun) when the Sunnis figured out that, should they actually force Shiites out of Sunni areas of Iraq with al-Qaida's help, al-Qaida intended to run the show in those areas, not the Sunnis.

    That left the Sunnis caught in their own “Triangle of Death,” between Shiites that want all Sunnis dead, the Americans who wanted Sunnis to get used to being an oppressed minority in the country they once ruled and al-Qaida, that considered Sunnis just a source of food, shelter and cannon fodder.

    So the Sunnis turned to the only one of those three that's managed to work itself into as big a jam they had – the Americans. Like two drowning swimmers they've glommed onto to one another hoping that, together, they can figure out a way to avoid going down together.

    A deal has been struck. The Sunnis “promise” to stop killing and blowing up American troops if the Americans help Sunni tribes cleanse their areas of foreign al-Qaida fighters.

    Admittedly, it's a novel idea. After all, Plan A hasn't worked. There was some kind of reverse double whammy thing going on with US tactics against al-Qaida-in-Iraq. The more US troops we put in to fight al-Qaida, the more al-Qaida fighters showed up to shoot them. (It was almost as though al-Qaida's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, meant it when he encouraged the US to send more troops to Iraq so his men could kill just that many more “infidels.”)

    Just a few weeks ago the idea of the US arming Sunni insurgents would have been considered madness. This morning it's US policy.

    Of course this new US plan does have it's detractors -- like the majority Shiite population for example. The Shiites have been busy stalling for time while it uses US money, training, guns and “democracy” to bulk up for the mother of all civil wars against the Sunnis.


    ......Mahdi militia looks to isolate Sunnis
    McClatchy Newspapers: BAGHDAD -- In the past 10 days, the fiery Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia has resurfaced in force, making a push to roust Sunnis from Baghdad and to isolate Sunni enclaves in the west of the capital from their brethren in the south...Mahdi Army militiamen in the Shiite dominated neighborhood of Bayaa were reinforced by other Shiite fighters and men in civilian clothes with weapons have cordoned off the area. In the past 10 days Mahdi Army activity has escalated, intensifying in the past two days with the capture of two Sunni mosques, residents and police said. ... The push appears to be part of a strategy by the Mahdi Army to control swaths of the once Sunni-dominated west bank of the Tigris River. (Full)


    The last thing the US-supported, Shiite-dominated Iraqi government wants is to have their own personal trainer helping the Sunnis bulk up too. As they see it, all that's going to do is make it harder for the Shiite's to reach a “final solution” to sectarian violence once Americans leave.

    Okay, you with me so far?

    That's the situation in central Iraq. Up north things are also getting a bit confusing. But not to worry. The White House says it's not the way it looks. The Kurds have been the administration's poster children of good Iraqi behavior. They have a nice little thing going up north now that Saddam is gone. In fact, for all intents as purposes, their own little country up there, at least in everything but name. (Though the Kurds have nicknamed the area “Kurdistan.”)

    But the Kurds figure they left something behind in Turkey and Iran – like more country. Their definition of “ours” seems to extend further west and east into areas that Turkey and Iran define as “theirs' and have the international deeds to prove it. To which the Kurds reply, “We don't need no stinkin's deeds,” and so are pressing their claims... with guns.

    The Turks were not amused.


    ......Turkey is Poised for War against Iraq's Kurds
    Turkey is dangerously close to launching a full-scale war across its eastern border into northern Iraq. The aim would be to wipe out the bases of the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), destroy once and for all the party's separatist ambitions, and put an end to cross-border terrorist attacks and hit-and-run raids by the PKK, which have inflamed nationalist opinion in Turkey. ... (But) Far from quelling Kurdish separatism in Iraq, the war might revive it in Turkey itself, home to some 15 million ethnic Kurds. Turkey fought a bitter war against the PKK from 1984 to 1999 which resulted in 35,000 dead and the displacement of some 2 million. (Full)


    The Iranians, who the US has been trying to freeze out influence in the region, area having a field day with all this. The Iranians have assured the Turks that, should the Kurds become troublesome, “you guys hit -em and we'll hold-em.”

    And of course the Iranians already pretty much call the shots in the Shiite south of Iraq, and they pull the strings of the largest Shiite political and militia forces in the rest of the country.

    Oh, and how's this for coincidence. Guess who else is giving guns and explosives to the Sunnis – Iran. Why? Because the Iranians want al-Qaida out of Iraq just as much as the Americans do. And the Iranians know that once the Sunnis chase al-Qaida out they will quickly turn their weapons back against occupying US troops. (Sure the Sunnis will also fight Iranian-supported Shiites. But in the Bizarro World that is the Middle East, Iran sees that as the least of the post-Saddam/post US era in Iraq.)

    I understand that the uninitiated might see all this as evidence that the US is losing ground in the region – big time. But we are just, in the words of our Command-in-Chief, “adjusting.”

    It's against this backdrop of “adjusting for success,” that administration supporters have decided that this would be the perfect moment to administer a giant dope-slap to the Iranians.


    ......Lieberman Backs Cross-Border Air Attacks On Iran
    June 11, 2007 9:40 a.m. EST: Washington, D.C. (AHN) - Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who was formerly a Democrat and who strongly supports the Iraq War, has said he backs cross-border attacks on Iran if that nation doesn't stop training Iraqi insurgents. ... "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Mr. Lieberman said in an interview yesterday on the CBS News. (Full)


    And, hey, how about those Sudanese? Remember when Bush said that “you are either with us or you are against us?” Well the Sudanese, it turns out, are with us:


    ......Sudan helps US spying in Iraq: report
    11 June 2007: WASHINGTON - The government of Sudan, regularly accused of backing atrocities in Darfur, has secretly allowed its spies to gather information about the insurgency in Iraq for the United States, The Los Angeles Times reported Monday...Citing unnamed intelligence officials, the California newspaper said Sudan has become increasingly valuable to Washington since the September 11, 2001, attacks because the Sunni Arab nation is a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan. (Full)


    Hey, what's a little genocide among allies? The Sudanese, you see, are Sunnis! Which dovetails nicely with the new tactics in Iraq. Sunnis in Iraq now get to kill just about anyone they want, with US guns and explosives even, as long as they kill al-Qaida fighters and not US troops.

    And the Sudanese can continue exterminating non-Muslim blacks in Darfur -- as long as they continue to snitch to the CIA on al-Qaida.



    .
    Last edited by sojustask; 06-12-2007 at 01:55 AM.

  2. #2
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Who's on First?

    Meanwhile, back in Iraq, we learned another thing about the administration's well-oiled plans. Sure we are giving guns now to Sunni insurgents, and sure the Shiites are unhappy about that, and sure it's going to make the inevitable civil war a lot more bloody that it otherwise would have been. And, when all that bloody sh!t hits the fan, US troops will have a front row seat:


    ......US Plans to Keep 40,000 Troops in Iraq
    June 12, 2007: The US military is planning for a long-term presence in Iraq even if there is a big troop withdrawal early next year...The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, declined to comment on reports in The Washington Post at the weekend that outlined a Pentagon plan for a post-occupation force of about 40,000 soldiers....Thomas Ricks, the Post's military correspondent, said the plan involved four components: a 20,000-strong reinforced mechanized infantry division, assigned to guarantee the security of the Iraqi Government; a training force of 10,000 troops to work with the Iraqi military and police units; a small but significant special operations unit; and finally a command and logistics unit of about 10,000 troops. (Full)


    Just what 40,000 US troops will do in Iraq while Sunnis and Shiites slaughter one another around them, is unclear. Ostensibly they will simply be there to keep an eye on al-Qaida, and not to intercede on either side in a civil war. Iran will side with their Shiite cousins, Syria will back their Sunni/Baath Party brethern, Turkey and the Kurds will be duking it out up north, a war that will threaten the cohesion of NATO itself.

    Of course, by then this administration will safely hunkered down it's own Green Zone, Crawford, Texas from where they can blame the whole mess on the Democrats.



    .
    Last edited by sojustask; 06-12-2007 at 01:55 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,578

    Re: Who's on First?

    I read this article this morning and spent the next few minutes scratching my head. Questions, questions, questions, and no clear answers. This is what Bush has given us since the day he was elected.

    If we left a year ago the Retardlicans said Iraq would degenerate into factional fighting and we just couldn't allow it. Now they are arming one of the deadlier factions to fight against the other. :confused:
    Does anyone have a Rubber plant we could put in the Oval Office instead of Dubya? I'm positive vegetable matter could make more lucid decisions.

  4. #4
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by UserName
    I read this article this morning and spent the next few minutes scratching my head. Questions, questions, questions, and no clear answers. This is what Bush has given us since the day he was elected.

    If we left a year ago the Retardlicans said Iraq would degenerate into factional fighting and we just couldn't allow it. Now they are arming one of the deadlier factions to fight against the other. :confused:
    Does anyone have a Rubber plant we could put in the Oval Office instead of Dubya? I'm positive vegetable matter could make more lucid decisions.
    LOL. It's almost like the whole plan was to send that country into Civil War, arm and train both sides and then watch the fireworks. Oh, and for good measure send over a bunch of Amerian troops for target practice.

    We are playing BOTH sides of the fence now? I don't know of a single time in history when that kind of strategy has ever benefited anyone.


    Lady Mod

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,578

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    LOL. It's almost like the whole plan was to send that country into Civil War, arm and train both sides and then watch the fireworks. Oh, and for good measure send over a bunch of Amerian troops for target practice.

    We are playing BOTH sides of the fence now? I don't know of a single time in history when that kind of strategy has ever benefited anyone.


    Lady Mod

    I would venture a guess that the House of Saud (Sunni) had something to do with this plan. They threatened to send troops into Iraq a short time back if the Sunnis appeared to be getting throttled.

    And we all know Saudi Arabia is our friend. :rolleyes:

  6. #6
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by UserName
    I would venture a guess that the House of Saud (Sunni) had something to do with this plan. They threatened to send troops into Iraq a short time back if the Sunnis appeared to be getting throttled.

    And we all know Saudi Arabia is our friend. :rolleyes:
    Hmmmm....well ain't this another fine mess our leaders have walked us into?


    Lady Mod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,197

    Re: Who's on First?

    Arming the Sunnis to kill Al-Queada

    Absolutely brilliant!!!! ......why shouldn't we try to make peace with the Sunnis

    ...and now lets hear from the left on what strategies they have
    Originally posted by Americanadian
    Palin: Omit the "i" and you're left with "Pain".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,505

    Re: Who's on First?

    This is about to Kill me, but Frank for once is correct. The Sunnis have traditionally been our friends and allies. Down the road we will need the Sunnis to fight against the Shia threat that's backed by Iran.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by franKg
    Arming the Sunnis to kill Al-Queada

    Absolutely brilliant!!!! ......why shouldn't we try to make peace with the Sunnis

    ...and now lets hear from the left on what strategies they have

    LOL...it's simple...you see, we bought you a one way ticket to Baghdad. Since you experience nocturnal emissions on a regular basis fantasizing about the occupation in Iraq, you can now visit Iraq and wet your pants on a grandeur scale. Yellow Kool Aid anyone?
    franKg - "Since God was ok with Moses, Joshua and David burning cities to the ground and killing all the civilians I think he would be ok with us splashing a little water on some terrorists."

    Dr poormouth - "Exackly;
    It's not "waterboarding", it's "extraordinary baptism""

    Quote Originally Posted by carlbenator
    As discussed in a previous thread, this IRRATIONAL HATRED for the Jews and their RIGHT to SURVIVE is one of the many PROOFS of a God, AND a Devil.

  10. #10
    dchristie's Avatar
    dchristie is offline Challenge Authority User Rank
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawud
    This is about to Kill me, but Frank for once is correct. The Sunnis have traditionally been our friends and allies. Down the road we will need the Sunnis to fight against the Shia threat that's backed by Iran.
    You've got it backwards. If you think Frankie is right, you've overlooked something.
    "The best case against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"
    -- Winston Churchill

  11. #11
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawud
    This is about to Kill me, but Frank for once is correct. The Sunnis have traditionally been our friends and allies. Down the road we will need the Sunnis to fight against the Shia threat that's backed by Iran.

    These particular "Sunnis" have past ties to Al Qaeda. Not only that, they fought with the insurgents against us, killing American soldiers. Or did that fact somehow escape both you and frankie?

    We torture people who have ties to Al Qaeda, remember? We show no quarter. Now you guys want us to not only support the enemy but also to arm them and pray that they keep their word and not shoot at Americans?

    You and frankie are not working with a full deck in those brain cavities between your ears.

    Lady Mod

    .

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The beautiful south!
    Posts
    3,046

    Re: Who's on First?

    Is this the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"??? This is getting more bizarre
    by the day and Im for the rubber plant idea. :D

  13. #13
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by goodwitchofthesouth
    Is this the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"??? This is getting more bizarre
    by the day and Im for the rubber plant idea. :D
    Well if World War 3 was the ultimate agenda, like the conspiracy theorists say then Bush and Cheney have done a fine job with setting the stage for it haven't they?

    The entire planet would have been better off without either one of them.



    Lady Mod

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bristol, Connecticut
    Posts
    223

    Re: Who's on First?

    same ole shia, different day.

  15. #15
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Who's on First?

    Quote Originally Posted by cheech
    same ole shia, different day.
    Maybe Bush should declare himself an "Enemy Combatant"?


    Lady Mod

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,467

    Re: Who's on First?

    I agree with Frank in principle but there isnt exactly a shortage of weapons in the Middle East, I dont see why we are arming them. I bet they were already armed, but it is good to see that the Sunnis want the foreign al-qaeda out of Iraq. Who knows maybe it will work out. As for Joe Lieberman, Im glad he came out over the weekend and said it was time to strike Iran, they are up to no good with the nukes and they are training and arming shias to kill US troops and to get a civil war going. They are trying to keep Iraq in chaos.
    Quote Originally Posted by gussser
    DC You post on so many different subjects that it hard to keep up with it all. Unconfuse me---ARE YOU JEWISH?????
    Take the Quiz! Are you left?Right? Middle?

    The Quiz!