Wow. I mean wow.........are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? I could have agreed with you, had you simply stated that most of the attacks in Iraq are from Shia or Sunni insurgent groups, but your own quoted article even disporves you, much less what I know to be true.

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq comprises the third group. The terrorist network was founded in 2003 by the now-dead Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (The extent of the group's organizational ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is hotly debated, but the organizations share a worldview and set of objectives.) AQI is believed to have the most non-Iraqis in its ranks, particularly among its leadership. However, most recent assessments say the rank and file are mostly radicalized Iraqis. AQI, which calls itself the "Islamic State of Iraq," espouses the most radical form of Islam and calls for the imposition of strict sharia, or Islamic law. The group has no plans for a future Iraqi government and instead hopes to create a new Islamic caliphate with borders reaching far beyond Mesopotamia."

There is absolutely no doubt about that fact that AQ is in Iraq, only the scale of involvment.

That is precisely what is happening according to MSNBC.

So the sunnis will have their own country which will align itself with Saudi Arabia. The oil-rich shiite region will be supported by Iran.

Turkey has already stated that if the Kurds obtain their independence that they will invade it. Turkey is a formidable NATO ally. So the Bush administration , nor any other administration for that matter ,will interfere.

Ain't Bush and the neocrazies a fantastic bunch. They changed Iraq from a relatively stable , secular country into 2 radical muslims countries. And the Kurds will be controlled by the Turks who hate their guts.

But the idiots inside the DC beltway will tell the populace that they have no idea why they hate us.

And so it goes.





Hummmmm

Does it really?

"The Myth of AQI

Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military's estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong.

So how did the military come up with an estimate of 15 percent, when government data and many of the intelligence community's own analysts point to estimates a fraction of that size? The problem begins at the top. When the White House singles out al-Qaeda in Iraq for special attention, the bureaucracy responds by creating procedures that hunt down more evidence of the organization. The more manpower assigned to focus on the group, the more evidence is uncovered that points to it lurking in every shadow. "When you have something that is really hot, the leaders start tasking everyone to look into that," explains W. Patrick Lang, a retired U.S. Army colonel and former head of Middle East intelligence analysis for the Department of Defense. "Whoever is at the top of the pyramid says, 'Make me a briefing showing what al-Qaeda in Iraq is doing,' and then the decision maker says, 'Aha, I knew I was right."



edited to remove several duplicate paragraphs.

The problem is that you and your one source are still contradicting yourselves. You state that AQI is a myth. Your linked article calls to question exactly how many AQ are in Iraq, but states unquestionably that they are there.

AQI does not pose a major risk in Iraq, now or after we leave. The Sunni groups are rejecting them, and the Shia are diametrically (within Islam) opposed to them. But to claim that they are not in Iraq at all, or that they do not pose some danger, is ridiculous.

You know , I am certain that there are Al Qaeda members in these USA. Gee whiz, with their crazy foreign policy the administration creates a new avenger every second. Should they then declare martial law? While you are in Iraq allegedly defending the Constitution and freedom the congresscritters are doing everything in their power to create a dictatorship.

What on earth are you even talking about???? Allow me to repeat your own words: That is PURE nonsense. Al Qaeda in Iraq is a myth; a fraud being perpetrated by Bush and the neocrazies. Are you willing to concede that AQ is in Iraq, contrary to your own statement and the link that you posted? Or are you diverting by saying something about 'Al Qaeda members in these USA'?

If you don't believe that AQI is present in some force, then who do you attribute high profile attacks such as vehicle borne IED's and the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samaara?

I don't believe the AQI presence in Iraq to be enough to warrant our never ending occupation, but lets be rational wth the truths and facts, shall we?


Allegedly according to who, me or congresscritters?

I don't think that article denies Al Qaida is in Iraq. What it does state however, is how the war supporters are overstating the threat/impact of Al Qaida in Iraq for political gain. As long as they can tie Iraq into people flying airplanes into our buildings, they gain political capital from the likes of some people on here championing the death and destruction from the comfort of their living room. The number of Al Qaida in Iraq is minuscule and they have nothing to do with the ones that were state sponsored and flew airplanes into our buildings. The war supporters need to magnify this bogeyman to justify this invasion and occupation.

But seriously - I have a question. Let's say General Patraeus got intel today and our armed forces went out tomorrow and killed every stinking Al Qaida person there. What would change? Would there be any affect at all in terms of violence or political reconciliation? How is that possible with 5% of the problem being magnified as the root problem?

Further, why are these guys Al Qaida? Because they showed up from Afganistan, or because it's a name that would ensure their relevance?

If I created a MySpace page and showed my plan to blow up a federal building, I'd be locked up and be a news story for a day. If I did the same and called myself Al Qaida, I would be in the news for a week and a tool for the Bush administration. I would become their PR monkey.

In any case - to be fair - the article does not dismiss Al Qaida in Iraq. It only points to how their relevance is overstated for political gain.

According to both. It appears that you have swallowed the propaganda hook line and sinker.

Its not exactly backwards, actually regardless of troop levels it appears to be what’s occurring there right now and basically what has been occurring. The reality as American forces could not stem sectarian violence, so what that lent a hand to was the concept that American forces could not protect anyone so they had to protect themselves. See, no brokering of power and or peace at that point, its really a simple set of steps to follow. Now if you would take a second to view the untold amount of times that various supporters of this war have presented views that turned out to be false I think you would come to notice that they have no idea really what they are talking about. How many people in government from military leaders to politicians have resigned over Iraq, why did Shinseki and even Powell have negative reactions overall to the concept? To couple with this you have the concept that our dear leader thinks turning Iraq into a war zone will somehow preoccupy terrorists, which of course is not true in the slightest but for every non combatant human being killed in Iraq because of our occupation bush lends to the concept that they died over some idea it will again preoccupy terrorists. IT basically in my opinion would do nothing but to add basically to why Iraq is nothing more then what it is currently, which is something that you can at least call a quagmire with no end in sight, and what I personally call iraqinam.

You can play the super patriot card all day, that’s fine, I wont call you a chickenhawk, but then again remember Vietnam? If we did not win in Vietnam the communists were going to take over the world! On that note I am sure if we stayed in Vietnam for around 345 years we might have won or something after everyone was dead and Vietnam was unsafe due to radiation.

All you can look to Bushco for in regards to Iraq is pep talks akin to playing high school football, that’s all that’s ever been there. Every year of Iraq or really every day of Iraq is nothing more then the same. The surge has not done anything at all, there is no security in Iraq, there is no government in Iraq, Iraq today is still just sectarian violence and instability that it has been since I can remember anymore. We have our heroes in name who come home to basically beg our government to end this problem in which they promptly get ignored so some idiot can basically talk about an Iraq of fantasy that has never ever existed. I have said it before and again, the only thing that’s ever going to change in Iraq is the day we finally decide to pull our heads out and bring the troops home.

HUH?

Where did you get the idea that the neocrazies have ever wanted to protect Iraqis? The American Likudnicks invaded Iraq in order to fulfill their own agenda. You don't win the hearts and minds of the people by shocking and awing the populace with phosphorus bombs. Our Founding Fathers were able to get rid of Britain's King George even though in the late 1700's the UK had a formidable army. If Saddam was a bad as they say he was the Iraqis would have found a way to to depose him. That never happened.

I'm curuious about your reference to "Likudniks." Do you hold that our invasion is purely due to the wishes of the Israeli lobby and government? If so, I'd be curious as to how this could be backed up by any hyperlinks that you may have run across.

The goal wasn't necessarily to protect Iraqis, though that is a part of it. The policy was carried out for the essential reason that brutally oppressive dictatorships with bad economies make for fertile breeding grounds for radical islamist movements. The president sums this up very well in his address to the American Legion.



President Bush's address to the American Legion.

The president's plan is indeed a plan, not a ploy created by the Israeli government or anyone else. The president and his necon friends view the conflict in Iraq within the broader context of an ideological struggle. To some degree, they are right. I don't agree with most of the plan, but the president's plan is indeed a sincere and well-thought out one, though not one that is prone to second thoughts and changes to the situation on the ground.

Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

The answer -- again --is a political stunt:

In order to grandstand for AIPAC - the Israeli Lobby.

(1) Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser

by Emad Mekay


WASHINGTON - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.


(2) The Bush Administration concealed/censored/ suppressed the FBI's testimony in which they testified that the reason we were attacked on 09/11 was the US support of Israel.

So when does the "plan" plan to invade Saudi Arabia, or how about Iran, nothing like a good old Iran or Saudi Arabia compared to Iraq to show the manure in such now is there. How about Darfur, maybe I could go on with such a list but its rather pointless. The policy that bush has enacted will end up ultimately accomplishing nothing but, well, I don’t think you can really add to that, it will accomplish nothing.

I don’t care what the war has to do with Israel, those people will be killing each other until our sun reaches the point of being a nova, its really pointless to debate also such also its simply just how it is...

The president had no plan, Iraq is evident of having no plan. People that are in control of something can control it, and shape it, and explain in detail why something is happening. We have none of that in Iraq because there was no plan. There is a long list of people that have quit and or been replaced to coincide with a long list of lies and outright betrayals of the American public and a sectarian nature handed to our own government by an arrogant pig headed brutally insane and utterly idiotic monster of a dictator that we call president. The plan would have succeeded if it was built for failure. The plan is really just to keep people there and toss money onto it and hope that something better comes out, that’s the plan. So support the troops, stay the course and don’t ask questions because questions need answers and if you have no plan well you better have a damn good mantra and some corrupt strings to pull. To say bush had a plan, no, there is no plan at all. Things that are going well do not breed civil discontent and talks of a draft. Things that are going well, that are planned to not breed a countless idiots with different opinions on a future of something they cant understand because nothing they say ever comes to light or becomes real. There is absolutely no plan of action for Iraq, we have no control of what goes on over there. The civil war had been looming for a long time and it simply just came, we could not stop it, a plan would entail control and results and a course of action that speaks of a timeline that for what its worth is currently forever or infinite occupation status. I must say that’s quite a plan in all reality, I personally don’t think I could do any better on a fifth of vodka after smoking a pound of crack.

Interesting, I found a different Common Dreams article that specifically mentions the Israeli prime minister, defence minister, as well as chief of military intelligence telling U.S. official unequivocally not to invade. Personaly, I would take a source of leading Israeli politicians more seriously than I would a disaffected, fired White House official. This notion of AIPIC or other zionist groups driving foreign policy is adeptly debunked. With Hussein out of power, anti-zionist Shi'ites in Iraq and salafist Sunnis now have greater sway, an event which is not in Israel's favor.



Once again, the mindset of the administration was that the fertile breeding ground of terrorism had to be deal with once and for all. Our efforts in the past were merely piece meal and half-hearted. Bombing Libya here, dealing with a hijacking there, not to mention an embassy bombing and the first attack on the trade center towers in '93, which proved to be an annoyance. Now I'm not saying the invasion of Iraq was right, or that the president has handled policy well. He did have a plan to deal with what he viewed as an international, ideological struggle. Unfortunately, his methods aren't the way we are going to win.

The surge is not a ploy on Israel's part. Is part of a plan by the administration to shore up an Iraqi government that in the future, will not be a breeding ground for future built up resentment against the west due to dictators, stagnant economies, and stoked by religious radicals.

My bad. And here I always thought that killing, wounding and maiming thousands of American soldiers to prop up a failed presidency over here and a corrupt and incompetent failed nation over there was considered a "negative." Maybe for a Bushbot your programming allows you to find the sweetness and light in the misery and suffering of others.



As opposed to the majority on the right who don't really care how many dead soldiers it takes to prop up Iraq's corrupt and incompetent government as long as it isn't them or anyone they know?

From the clumsy and blatantly ridiculous hypothetical you tried to pass off as a sincere question in your last post, I'd have to say you "really don't think" about a lot of things, Sleeper. As far as "looking like a fool" or "foaming at the mouth" goes, should I presume that's just you demonstrating how you "really don't think?"

I have no reason to justify or explain myself to anyone who can't tell the difference between a sincere desire to ensure the sacrifice of our troops do not go unnoticed and "political posturing."

Is president Bush's plan to send more troops into Bagdad a real plan, or is it a political stunt?

So you believe that the US Official - Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson - is reliable. Let's see what else Colonel Wilkerson is saying:

Iraq War Intelligence was "a Hoax"

During an October 19, 2005 speech at the New America Foundation, Wilkerson gave a stinging criticism of the entire intelligence community which compiled the Iraq War Intelligence. He had criticism for U.S. intelligence agencies as well as the international community including the French, Germans, and British who all believed the intelligence prior to the Iraq War.
“ I can’t tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth ”

— Lawrence Wilkerson, New America Foundation, October 19 2005[4]

In an interview that aired on the PBS news magazine NOW on PBS in Spring 2006 Wilkerson claimed that the speech Powell made before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, laying out a case for war with Iraq, included falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware. He said, "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."[5]

Ya a myth. And the leaders we killed there were a “myth” too? How about the comments by Bin Laden himself to his followers saying that Iraq was the “front” with the US?

“Osama bin Laden has used his first videotape message in nearly three years to threaten to escalate the violence in Iraq and attack the US government.

The tape, released on Friday, ends with bin Laden telling US citizens that they should "embrace Islam" if they want the war in Iraq to end.

According to a transcript released by a US-based website which monitors radical websites, bin Laden suggests that there are two ways the Iraq war could be ended.

"The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you," he said.

The second is for the US to abandon its democratic system of government.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/680...E67824137E4.htm


And lets remember that some of the acts planned or perpetrated by AQ in Iraq – like blowing up shrines is the prima facha cause of much of the subsequent violence.

I don't really see it happening as a result of any "plan". I see it simply happening, as in, like, right now, as we type. Sunnite and Shi'ite are separating (or being separated) from each other, physically.


However daunting something like this may seem, I can't see how it would be any more daunting than the current situation, with Sunnites and Shi'ites all meshed together generally. If anything, it would be all around less daunting. There would be less opportunity for guerrilla warfare as the two sides become separated from each other. Particular areas would come under the more solid control of particular groups, which would make it easier to hold them accountable for what goes on in their respective turfs. Patrolling could be focused more on just the boundary areas between them, rather than all throughout the country. This could be done with fewer troops, and perhaps even with a multinational force of some kind replacing U.S. troops.


Actually I don't think any of those is the case. I think their main motivation, apart from a genuine antipathy towards al-Qa'ida itself, it to end Coalition presence by removing the main draw, which is AQI. As these two articles indicate, these fighters had been members of the insurgency up till recently.



That the number of fighters directly answerable to AQI represents a small percentage of the overall insurgency is acknowledged all around. But where are you getting the idea that they have nothing to do with the rest of al-Qa'ida?

First of all, the ISG treats them as a very serious threat, so to claim that this is just Bush propaganda is itself just propaganda. On top of which, AQI in constant communication with the main Qa'ida group, and despite their small numbers, they've been able to carry out the most spectacular attacks, which would suggest a fairly high degree of outside support and organization. So whatever their exact relation is to the main group, what's clear is that they have similarly ambitious goals, and they appear to be (or at least to have been, prior to the "failed" surge) making themselves well-positioned to carry them out.

So what evidence do you have to argue against this? I mean, other than some commentator dismissing it all as some "Bushco neo-con-job" or something.

Dou you ever wonder why is it that the neocrazies have not captured Usama? Is it because the repugnants need a bogeyman to continue the perpetual "war on terror"?!?

Were the alleged leaders wearing uniforms and/or some kind of distinctive garment showing that they were AQ leaders? How do youy know whether the recent Usamah video tape was not a CIA production?!?!

Why would the same leaders who have been feeding us garbage since day one stop now?!?

The problem is the current situation is a drain on American lives for no practical gain. I completely disagree with your assessment of how much easier it would be to control insurgent violence with de facto segregation. You haven't touched on many of the points I brought up, which, having an understanding of Baghdad, remain roadblocks to any form of peace through separation.
Separation without a comprehensive peace plan will not work. These people take religion to the extreme. If Shia control a Muhallah that contains a Sunni mosque, or visa versa, that mosque now becomes collateral. Any act against the opposition will result in the destruction of the mosque, which will in turn result in more acts of violence. The same goes for essential services. How do you handle access to the few hospitals? The fewer water treatment facilities and the spotty electrical grid only serve to complicate matters. If you encourage or facilitate segregation without taking these matters into account, you aren't working to diffuse the violence.



I completely disagree for the reasons I previously stated.


At least you're consistant.....I guess. Your posts all have the same trademark. Not very mature name calling, drive by one liners and debating via hyperlink. Are you interested in debating at all, or are you simply here for a short time (because members with this style seldom last long) to rant and vent?
One quoted article doesn't dispute AQI presence, that article in fact contradicting your statement in plain black and white. You don't have to believe what I say, but I'm not exactly on the opposing side of your general argument. I don't believe we should be in Iraq any longer. The surge will not work. But I also conduct operations against AQI on an at least weekly basis.

Actually that is not at all what has been said – quite the opposite. Bush has been criticized for not focusing on him alone. Meanwhile the Taliban have been building up and attacking.

Is the war over? I think not.



I was referring to the ones we KILLED in Iraq. Did you miss that?

As far as the recent tape it was delivered overseas and you can be sure if the CIA “made it up” we would have heard from AQ. Plus BL came across as such a wacko you wonder if he is still sane.

Al the same his organization is very much alive as evidenced by the recent plots foiled in UK and Denmark – or were they “made up too”???

Edit

As far as the surge (escalation) is concerned I don't think that you can separate it from the initial invasion which was an illegal . If A=B and B=C then A=C.

I didn't mean to ignore any of your points. You're right that segregation could seriously complicate things in Baghdad. But the flip side is that while it may well increase the motivation for more violence, I have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that it would greatly decrease the opportunity for it. If they're physically separated, it would be harder for them to hit each other, and proportionately easier to prevent them from doing so.



Here's what you previously stated:


I agreed with you that they don't like AQI at all, and that seems to be their main motivation. As for how U.S. forces fit into the picture from their perspective, you disagree with me but aren't really providing much in the way of reasons. Do you agree that most of these anti-AQI fighters are themselves former insurgents? If so, it would have to follow that they never really wanted us around much anyway. It could only follow from there that the other motivation they have for going after AQI is to take away the draw for us. This was also the conclusion of the Jamestown article I linked to.

I really believe the right way to get the U.S. out of Iraq is to get al-Qa'ida out of there also.