Another trip to Arlington...

[kwillia]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/07/09/insurgent-infiltration-b_n_24671.html


...any time.

I'll stop you... all wars have their infiltrators... Benedict Arnold... why are you trying to present it as the majority? I know it can't be because that is what is in the headlines because you of all people know that choices as to what to put in headlines isn't fair and balanced.

 

[Larry Gude]

Dear...

Larry, we have criminals in *this* country who impersonate a cop to do something bad. Plus we have actual bad cops who commit crimes. How is what's happening in Iraq all that different?

...I love you.

I made a statement of fact; most of the insurgents are in the police and the army. That was challenged and I'll just go right along proving my point if you'd like.

 

[vraiblonde]

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

 

[kwillia]

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

You should check Gumbo's PMer box and see if Larry asked for the name of his doctor...

 

[vraiblonde]

I made a statement of fact; most of the insurgents are in the police and the army. That was challenged and I'll just go right along proving my point if you'd like.

You still haven't "proved" that "most" of the insurgents are in the police and the army. I fully believe that *some* are, but not most of them.

 

[cattitude]

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

What is disconcerting is that I am thinking like Larry.

 

[Larry Gude]

kwill...

I'll stop you... all wars have their infiltrators... Benedict Arnold... why are you trying to present it as the majority? I know it can't be because that is what is in the headlines because you of all people know that choices as to what to put in headlines isn't fair and balanced.

...some people are invested in the myth that most of the violence is perpetrated by Al Queda. Nothing seems to support that.

People hear 'insurgent' and they think of Zarqawi, someone who came to Iraq to cause trouble.

Insurgents are, historically, mostly members of the state in which the insurgency is taking place. People are joining the army and police by day and working for their groups own interest at night.

US patrols are to use Iraqi locals as part of their job. They are finding that when a given group will cooperate and hel go raid a house, if the Iraqi's cooperate, they know they'll find nothing because whomever and whatever they're looking for is gone. When the locals won't cooperate, they know the tip is hot.

Vietnam. Same thing. It's what insurgencies do.

 

[Larry Gude]

You are right...

You still haven't "proved" that "most" of the insurgents are in the police and the army. I fully believe that *some* are, but not most of them.

...I don't have a tally. I withdraw my statement. I cannot prove there is even one insurgent infiltrated into Iraqi police or military units let alone several or many or more than 1/2.

There. That problem is solved!

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

Larry, this recent leftward turn of yours is disturbing me. First you friggin' quit smoking, then you go left. Any other little surprises you have for me??

..smoking is bad for you and Iraq was a mistake and doing more of the same is dumb.

I love you.

 

[Larry Gude]

Arnold...

I'll stop you... all wars have their infiltrators... Benedict Arnold... why are you trying to present it as the majority? I know it can't be because that is what is in the headlines because you of all people know that choices as to what to put in headlines isn't fair and balanced.

...was a traitor; he switched sides and turned on his own.

An insurgent is more like a spy; he's trying to be part of the organization in order to better attack it.

 

[vraiblonde]

I love you.

Good. I was scared for a minute that you were going to leave me for Cindy Sheehan. She's single now, you know.

 

[kwillia]

...some people are invested in the myth that most of the violence is perpetrated by Al Queda. Nothing seems to support that.

I've not doubt that what we are seeing now is faction against faction. I do fully believe that foreign militants helped to egg that on and that faction leaders are taking advantage of the chaos for political gain. That being said I still hold on tight to the thought that the majority of the Iraqi citizens want to live a normal life and would accept an Iraqi government if that government can display some sense of control. To me, this means that we own some responsiblity in helping the fledgling government get control since we created the chaos by removing the dictator who was successful in keeping the factions under control via deadly force. That being said, I want the stops to be pulled out now. If a man raises arms against the Iraqi government as currently defined, that man should be considered an enemy of the state and eliminated. Time for talks and negotiations and rehabilitation are gone. I fully believe that the majority of Iraqi men in general will respect that and will side with the power in control. I also believe that the reason people aren't raising arms against the insurgents today, is because they know there is no support for them doing so. There is too much appeasement going on.

 

[Larry Gude]

Sheehan...

Good. I was scared for a minute that you were going to leave me for Cindy Sheehan. She's single now, you know.

...thinks there's no justification for the war.

I think the war is so important that there is no justification for screwing it up.

Besides, what if she doesn't like and and and and like we do?

 

[kwillia]

...was a traitor; he switched sides and turned on his own.

An insurgent is more like a spy; he's trying to be part of the organization in order to better attack it.

He didn't "switch sides" until he plan was thwarted and he had to make a run for his life...

He is best known for plotting to surrender the American fort at West Point, New York, to the British during the American Revolution.

In September 1780, he formulated his scheme, which, if successful, would have given British forces control of the Hudson River valley and split the colonies in half. The plot was thwarted, but Arnold managed to flee to British forces in New York with the help of John Borns, where he was rewarded with a commission as a Brigadier General in the British Army, along with a reduced reward of £6,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

 

[Larry Gude]

Eliminated by who?

I've not doubt that what we are seeing now is faction against faction. I do fully believe that foreign militants helped to egg that on and that faction leaders are taking advantage of the chaos for political gain. That being said I still hold on tight to the thought that the majority of the Iraqi citizens want to live a normal life and would accept an Iraqi government if that government can display some sense of control. To me, this means that we own some responsiblity in helping the fledgling government get control since we created the chaos by removing the dictator who was successful in keeping the factions under control via deadly force. That being said, I want the stops to be pulled out now. If a man raises arms against the Iraqi government as currently defined, that man should be considered an enemy of the state and eliminated. Time for talks and negotiations and rehabilitation are gone. I fully believe that the majority of Iraqi men in general will respect that and will side with the power in control. I also believe that the reason people aren't raising arms against the insurgents today, is because they know there is no support for them doing so. There is too much appeasement going on.

Us?

Everything you're saying is valid and fundamental but there are so many factions in Iraq that I think we're talking 1,000's more US dead, tens of thousands wounded and maybe another $2-300 billion over the next four years.

IS IT WORTH IT???

 

[Larry Gude]

He's still not...

He didn't "switch sides" until he plan was thwarted and he had to make a run for his life...

He is best known for plotting to surrender the American fort at West Point, New York, to the British during the American Revolution.

In September 1780, he formulated his scheme, which, if successful, would have given British forces control of the Hudson River valley and split the colonies in half. The plot was thwarted, but Arnold managed to flee to British forces in New York with the help of John Borns, where he was rewarded with a commission as a Brigadier General in the British Army, along with a reduced reward of £6,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

...an insurgent. He was a traitor.

 

[kwillia]

Us?

Everything you're saying is valid and fundamental but there are so many factions in Iraq that I think we're talking 1,000's more US dead, tens of thousands wounded and maybe another $2-300 billion over the next four years.

IS IT WORTH IT???

As a citizen of this country I feel completely responsible for F'ing it up as soon as we finished marching on Baghdad. It didn't have to be this way... I don't like the thought of more of our troops getting killed and maimed but I also don't think we have much of a choice. I do have faith that our troops can kick azz and take names if there are given the chance. The freakin' desk "generals" and the MEDIA need to stop tying their hands....

 

[kwillia]

...an insurgent. He was a traitor.

in·sur·gent
–noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.

He didn't agree with the decisions made by the Continental Congress so he devised a plan to undermine them. That's close enough to the definition above for my use.

 

[vraiblonde]

IS IT WORTH IT???

You tell me. YOU are the one that keeps saying Saddam wanted to be the next Saladin. Should we have just let him?

And then what happens when all the Arab nations are united against their enemies (namely, us and the Israelis)?

 

[Larry Gude]

I stand and applaud...

Then I suppose objectively you have to accept that by doing nothing led to the 911 attacks and by doing nothing would likely result in the same or even worse in our future.

So objectively what do you propose we do Larry?

...9/11 = Iraq

Very nice.

Al Queda had very little, if anything, to do with Iraq. Al Queda had far more of a relationship with Saudi nationals. So, naturally, after 19 mostly Saudi's with boxcutters hijack US airlines, we invade Iraq.

What do we do?

Timetables.

Bush's definition of victory is "a free, stable and secure Iraq". Based on what? His opinion? This on top of already having accomplished our original mission of deposing Saddam, installing a democracy (oxymoronic in it's own right) and verified the WMD situation.

Iraq has the manpower and the training to take control of their nation in our absence. We can't give them the will. We can give them the motivation.


Or, we just keep doing what we're doing and say it's to complicated to leave.